Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ABERDEEN SHOEMAKERS INCORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

CITY OF GLASGOW DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

School Leavers

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will detail the Government measures introduced to occupy unemployed school leavers whilst they are looking for work; and if he is proposing any further measures to help young people in cities.

Sir W. Elliott: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will detail the Government measures introduced to occupy unemployed school leavers whilst they are looking for work; and if he is proposing any further measures to help young people in cities.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): Since 1975 the Government and the Manpower Services Commission have strengthened the careers service, extended community industry, provided training places and otherwise provided assistance to unemployed young people through the job creation programme, the work experience programme, the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, and the youth employment subsidy.
The Manpower Services Commission is to operate a new youth opportunities programme for unemployed young people. This will offer within an integrated framework a combination of training and work experience which can be adapted to the individual needs of young people aged 16 to 18.
Inner city areas will benefit under this and the new urban programme.

Mr. Durant: That sounds very laudable, but will the Minister say how many permanent jobs have been created by the Government's policy towards young people in particular? Is he aware of the special problems of young West Indians in my constituency, for example, who have opted out of the system altogether? Will he talk to the Commission for Racial Equality on this subject?

Mr. Booth: The principal agencies for the creation of permanent jobs are not


those which I have outlined. They are to be found in industrial strategy and in the development of services. The principal aims of the programme operated by my Department and by the Manpower Services Commission for young people are to enable them to obtain jobs when they would not otherwise be able to do so.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend say what representations, if any, he has had from industrialists who are complaining about the standard of education of youths leaving school who apply for apprenticeships, in particular? Will he say whether he considers this to be a serious matter and, if so, will he inform the House what he intends to do about it?

Mr. Booth: I can tell my hon. Friend that it certainly is the case that a number of industrialists expect applications to come from young people who are comparatively well qualified and, in some cases, experienced. This is reducing the numbers being recruited. One of the great advantages of the schemes that are now being run by MSC and by my Department is that they provide young people with the training and experience to meet employers' requirements.

Mr. Haselhurst: In view of the need for greater genuine productivity and the demands of increased mechanisation, is the Secretary of State prepared to acknowledge that there is a need for a scheme that is more permanent and extensive than anything that he or the MSC has so far produced if any kind of meaningful occupation is to be provided for young people in the years ahead?

Mr. Booth: I am not prepared to concede that there is a need for something more permanent than anything we have considered or envisaged. Over and above the special measures to which I have just referred, we have, of course, given careful consideration to the means of funding a much longer-term skills programme.
We produced a document last year on the collective funding of transferable skills and have done further work on that. I told the House last Wednesday that I hoped, before Christmas, to be able to announce proposals to meet the longer-term need for skills.

Mr. Hardy: I welcome the helpful and wide-ranging measures that my right hon. Friend has described to the House. Does he not agree, however, that the problem is likely to be even more severe in the small towns and villages, such as those which I represent? Will he consider further encouraging young people who have no work to enter suitable training, and further ensure that the worthwhile Community Industry scheme is expanded in South Yorkshire?

Mr. Booth: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we have noted the important rôle that Community Industry can play. For that reason, we have expanded the scheme, in respect of both the number of people that it covers and its geographical range. However, I urge the House to consider the fact that the youth opportunities programme, which we hope very shortly to be able to sanction in its initial form, will provide training and work experience places for every unemployed youngster who wishes to be offered that opportunity. That must have a particular relevance to the sort of areas to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Henderson: Has the Secretary of State any evidence to show whether experience in the job creation scheme has better equipped young people for a permanent job? Does he accept that there is a feeling that many of the jobs that have been taken have not added in any way to their skills?

Mr. Booth: I cannot present the House with exact numbers. I should like to be able to deploy my staff for a precise survey of the results of every job creation and work experience scheme. I have managed to satisfy myself that on all of the better schemes the overwhelming majority of youngsters pass from them into full-time employment. I visited a large scheme at Chatham a few weeks ago and found that every youngster who had completed it had found a permanent job, using the skill which he had learned in the course of that programme. I also visited a scheme at Carlisle last Friday and found that one problem of running the scheme was that youngsters moved into full-time jobs before they had completed their training.

Dismissals

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of dismissal cases before industrial tribunals for each three-month period since the tribunals began work.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): As the reply involves a table of figures, I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, circulate the details in the Official Report.

Mrs. Knight: Is it not true that the number of dismissal cases is rising sharply? Is the Minister aware that clerks in employment exchanges often urge dismissed persons to claim, stressing that it will not cost them anything, even though the dismissal may be perfectly justified? Is he also aware that cost to the employer is inevitable, whatever happens? Will he take steps to stop claims which are purely vexatious or trivial, because they are a problem for industry?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady is right, I think, in only the first part of what she said. It is certainly true that the number of applications to tribunals concerning unfair dismissal cases is increasing. However, the hon. Lady should not believe all that she reads in newspapers. The kind of wild allegation that she has made about the staff of the Employment Services Agency has been investigated. Certainly, as we should expect, the staff give advice, which is available to all. However, they do not operate in the way that the hon. Lady and some sections of the Press have suggested. Of course, the tribunals already have power to award costs against the appellant where there is a frivolous or vexatious claim. Furthermore, I think that the hon. Lady will recognise that the conciliation officers of the ACAS have been playing a sieving rôle to ensure that where cases can be settled without going to tribunal, this is done.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister of State confirm that no worker can make an application for unfair dismissal unless he has completed 26 weeks' continuous employment? Will he further confirm that that period also allows a competent employer to determine whether

a person is satisfactory, and that the provisions of this legislation represent fundamental rights which have been freely available to many workers in most other countries for many years?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is quite right. I can tell him and the House that I never cease to be surprised by the number of letters that I receive from Conservative Members complaining that the 26-week period prevents some of their constituents from making applications. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that the unfair dismissal in the first place rests with the employer. It is not the Act which creates unfair dismissals; it is the employers.

Mr. Prior: Does the Minister recognise that there is great concern about the way in which industrial tribunals are operating at the moment? Is he aware that it is a concern that is not confined to employers but is shared by some trade unions leaders? Is he also aware that the number of unfair dismissal cases is going up by about 50 per cent. a year? Does he realise that this is leading to a view among small employers in particular that it is far better not to employ labour? If we are to reduce unemployment, ought he not to look at this in a rather less prejudiced way than he has, perhaps, done so far?

Mr. Walker: I have acknowledged that the number of applications to tribunals on the ground of unfair dismissal has risen in recent years, but I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, contrary to the assumption that there is a steady increase at the rate of 50 per cent. a year, it has levelled out over the past 18 months at about 3,000 cases per quarter. However, I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point regarding the concern that has been expressed about tribunals. It would have helped both the House and me if he had been more specific. For example, there are allegations that the tribunals have become over-legalistic. It is said that as a consequence, instead of being informal hearings, without legal support and the consequent costs, such legalism has added to the costs of taking cases to tribunals. I share that concern, and it is something, that we shall have to look at. However, if the right hon. Gentleman has other points in mind I shall be glad to look at


them if he will draw to my attention specific charges.

Following is the information:

The following figures give the numbers of unfair dismissal cases reported as heard in the following quarters:


1972


February-September
1,002


October—December
852


1973


January-March
879


April-June
1,220


July-September
1,121


October-December
776


1974


January-March
961


April-June
914


July-September
684


October-December
921


1975


January-March
1,459


April-June
1,749


July-September
2,317


October-December
3,204


1976


January-March
3,069


April-June
3,506


July-September
3,329


October-December
3,496


1977 (Provisional)


January-March
3,382


April-June
3,025

West Midlands

Mr, Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what shortages of skilled and unskilled workers have been reported to him from the West Midlands area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): Reports have been received from the West Midlands of shortages of skilled workers in a few trades and localities.

Mr. Miller: Will the Minister tell the House what reports have been received about unskilled workers, and if his civil servants have not taken the trouble to find out what the situation is, will he accept that I have received constant complaints about shortages of skilled and unskilled workers? Will he explain how, in a time of high unemployment, this apparent contradiction occurs and what policy formulation he is taking to remedy such a situation?

Mr. Golding: The hon. Member asked what shortages have been reported to my Secretary of State, not whether his officials could make inquiries. The short

answer is that no complaints have been made to the Secretary of State in respect of a shortage of unskilled workers.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that the shortage of skilled craftsmen in the Midlands is still most serious? Is he further aware that part of the reason for this shortage is the lack of differential in pay between the skilled man and the unskilled man? Does he realise that if these differentials were restored the shortage of skilled men would decrease?

Mr. Golding: The reasons for shortages are many. Pay is certainly one of them in certain circumstances. Lack of housing, difficulty of access to the firm, selectivity by employers, poor working conditions in some places and strong competition from other firms are all factors that we certainly have to take into account. But the paramount aim must be the maintenance of the Government's pay policy.

Press Charter

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's progress in drawing up the Press charter as required under the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Harold Walker: At the request of the Secretary of State I am currently engaged in the extensive programme of consultations required by the Act.

Mr. Aitken: Is it intended to write into the Press charter the fundamental right of a journalist to belong to the appropriate union of his choice or not to belong to a union? Does the Minister realise that almost all the Press representatives—the only notable exception being the NUJ—who tried to reach agreement for the industry on a voluntary charter agreed that this right should be written in, and will he take cognisance of that important fact?

Mr. Walker: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets his authority for the last part of his question. On the first part, it would be most unwise of me, while engaged in consultation, to preempt the outcome in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, I am astonished that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), in advance of the outcome of consultations and before


the laying of the charter before the House, should have so firmly committed himself and his party on this point. It is difficult for me to reconcile what the hon. Gentleman wants with the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1976.

Mr. Prior: Do we take it from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not believe in total Press freedom, to the extent that the journalist should have freedom to write what he likes without having to belong to a union?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has declared that he would not support any charter that did not contain an absolute right for a journalist not to belong to a trade union. First, that is a significant shift from the attitude that he and his party adopted when this matter was before the House in 1974 and 1976. Second, I repeat that, although I am anxious to avoid pre-empting the discussions in which I am engaged, I should find it very difficult to reconcile what the right hon. Gentleman seeks with the provisions in the 1976 Act which require the charter to contain provisions for the application of union membership agreements to journalists. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the definition of a union membership agreement he will understand what I am saying.

Northern Region

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to deal with the level of unemployment in the Northern Region.

Mr. Golding: The region will continue to benefit from the Government's special employment measures, which have so far benefited over 52,000 persons in the Northern Region. This total includes 20,465 benefiting from temporary employment subsidy, 17,795 from the job creation programme, 4,656 under the work experience programme, 3,443 under the scheme of recruitment subsidy for school leavers, 2,393 under the job release scheme, and 524 under the small firms employment subsidy scheme.

Mr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that the unemployment level throughout the region now approaches 10 per cent. and that that figure in itself camouflages

pockets where unemployment is between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent.? Can he offer some assurance about what the Government are doing to insert a regional dimension in these nationally applied policies?

Mr. Golding: The Government are very concerned at these high levels of unemployment in the Northern Region. They have agreed to new NEB initiatives to assist industrial development in the North, and workers at C. A. Parsons will benefit from the advancement of the order for Drax B. The Government have also offered Newcastle and Gateshead local authorities a partnership scheme to help to deal with their inner city problem, and northern shipyards have already benefited from the Government's £65 million intervention fund.

Sir W. Elliott: I received with considerable interest the Minister's array of figures, but can he give an indication of how many permanent jobs have arisen from the so-called emergency measures? Second, can he give an indication of the advice given to officers of his Department in the area of the Northern Region in dealing with young men and women who are offered jobs and make no effort to take them up?

Mr. Golding: We cannot quantify the exact number of jobs which have been created, for the reason previously given by the Secretary of State, but it is clear that the special measures have led to permanent employment for many young persons. Certainly, the new small firms employment subsidy is leading to an extension of employment in the Northern Region, specifically as a result of the subsidy.

Mr. Noble: Bearing in mind the point made by the Prime Minister last Thursday, that the temporary employment subsidy would have to be continued in some form or another, when does my hon. Friend expect to make an announcement on that matter? In formulating plans for the future of the subsidy, will he also take into account those firms whose entitlement has already been exhausted but who are desperately in need of its continuation?

Mr. Golding: My right hon. Friend will be reviewing these special urban temporary employment measures towards


the end of the year, and he will make an announcement in good time before the ending of the period of the various schemes.

Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister reconsider the effect of the Employment Protection Act and also the effect of the legislation imposing minimum wages? Will he confirm that these interferences in the free market in labour are particularly disadvantageous to those who are weak, young, and untrained, and those who live in depressed areas, such as the Northern Region?

Mr. Golding: I think that there is some misunderstanding of the Employment Protection Act which leads employers to be more reluctant to employ in some circumstances than they would otherwise be, but I repeat the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), that the protection does not extend beyond those people who have been employed for 26 weeks or more.

Job Creation

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultation there has been with the Scottish brickmakers over the job creation scheme activity to remove the tips of colliery waste shale.

Mr. Golding: None, Sir. I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that no job creation programme projects have been approved in Scotland specifically for the removal of tips of colliery waste shale.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, the information that I have received from the Scottish brickmakers is that there is such a scheme, and if it is not yet started it will go ahead in the near future. May I have an assurance from him that there will now be consultations with the Scottish brickmakers before any decision is made to institute a job creation scheme of this sort?

Mr. Golding: I am aware of no scheme specifically for the removal of tips of colliery waste shale. However, if the hon. Gentleman will let me have details of the matter, I shall look carefully into it.

Mr. Dalyell: Most of the shale tips are in the West Lothian constituency. Is my

hon. Friend aware that industries run mostly by William Griffiths Limited are very efficient without the sort of thing suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris)?

Mr. Golding: I am glad to hear it.

British Railways (Dismissals)

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees of British Railways have been dismissed for refusing to join a trade union; and whether he will make a statement about Government policy towards such dismissals.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): Information as to the number of employees dismissed by individual employers is not available to me. The Government's policy on the closed shop remains that outlined in the Adjournment debate with the hon. Member, to which my hon. Friend replied on 7th April 1977.

Mr. Gow: May I tell the Minister, since he has not bothered to find out, that the number of employees dismissed by British Rail for refusing to join a trade union is now 40, and that of those five had between 29 and 39 years' service and two more than 39 years' service? Will the Minister not improve upon his Pontius Pilate attitude and express the view that these dismissals are wholly unjustified and unjustifiable?

Mr. Grant: We naturally regret that it has not been possible for such differences to be resolved. However, there is no requirement on employers to notify these matters to the Government, whether they are in the private sector or the public sector, and we would not wish to draw a distinction between them.

Mr. Walter Jonnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, for many years, the people about whom we are talking have accepted the benefits of trade union representation without paying one penny piece towards it, and that a democratic decision has been taken by the trade unions concerned that they will have nothing more to do with these parasites?

Mr. Grant: The Government's position on this matter is quite clear. We regard it as one between unions and management, and I should have thought


that Opposition Members would have learned the lessons from 1971 of trying to interfere in these matters.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would the Minister care to point out to the unions in British Railways that if only trade unionists travelled on the railways they would be in a worse state for earning profits, and half of the workers in British Railways would not have jobs?

Mr. Grant: I find it difficult to see the relevance of that.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that over the years a multitude of decent people have lost their jobs simply because they were members of trade unions? Does he further agree that this position still obtains at Grunwick? What further steps is he taking to meet that situation?

Mr. Grant: Much as I sympathise with the general tone of my hon. Friend's question, I do not believe that the Grunwick situation arises on this Question.

Mr. Prior: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nothing does the trade unions more harm than the sort of action that has been taken in the case of British Rail? Why do the Government not at least bring pressure to bear upon employers who enter into union membership agreements which are so restrictive on the rights of existing employees at the time when such agreements are entered into? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a trade union has to exact the terms of the union membership agreement to the extent of 40 people out of 220,000?

Mr. Grant: I have already pointed out that we do not think it right to put pressure on either employers or trade unions in the fashion that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. It would be interesting if the House could learn from the right hon. Gentleman what his party's policy is because, although it has been spelt out in "The Right Approach", when one hears the right hon. Gentleman speak about it he talks of seeking to ensure things. He has not told the country what that policy will be.

Mr. Gow: I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Low-Paid Workers

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the low-paid.

Mr. John Grant: As promised in the White Paper, "The Attack on Inflation" after 31st July 1977, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a number of measures designed to give special help to the low-paid and to families with children. In addition, I am taking a number of measures to improve compliance with the statutory minimum rates set by wages councils.

Mr. Rooker: Can my hon. Friend confirm that most of the low-paid work is in the wages council sector, and can he tell us how he can square calling in a wages council award of 11 per cent. on a basic rate of £26 per week with not doing anything about another wages council award when it allowed a 16-month gap between settlements? Will my hon. Friend place in the Library a considered document outlining the Government's total strategy regarding the low-paid?

Mr. Grant: The two cases to which my hon. Friend refers do not bear comparison, because one was in clear breach of the Government's guidelines. In the second case—I have already replied to my hon. Friend about this in a Written Answer—there was no way in which intervention could have been made; the legislation would not permit it. On the general question, it is very unpleasant to have to seek to limit these low-wage industries, and I confirm what my hon. Friend said—there are some 3 million workers in wages council industries, most of whom are very low paid. It is very unpleasant to have to request them to limit their increases when pay rates are so low, but I believe that it is essential that the Government do their utmost to try to uphold the 10 per cent. guideline. I believe that it is in the interests of low-paid workers and pensioners—people of the sort who are lobbying the House this afternoon—that we try to keep down inflation, because these are the people who are hardest hit when unfettered free collective bargaining is allowed to take precedence.

Mr. Sproat: Does the Minister agree that it is not just the low-paid who are


badly treated? Is there not something desperately wrong with the whole wages taxes-benefits situation when the average man in work, with the average family commitments, receives, after the Chancellor's cuts, £57·74 net spending power a week but his neighbour in exactly the same position who is out of work from yesterday onwards can receive, in cash and kind, £55·94 per week? In other words, the man in work is getting out of bed in the morning for a difference of only 36p a day, and, what is more, if his neighbour happens to have three children, that neighbour is, right from the start, better off not working than working.

Mr. Grant: I am sure that the House will want to study the hon. Gentleman's statistics very carefully, because we have had some experience of his facts and figures in the past. Beyond that, I certainly believe that there is a more rational way of ordering our affairs, and I hope that that can be found in the future. However, I very much doubt whether the Tory Party will support it.

Mr. Ashley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Low Pay Unit has performed a valuable service by producing a series of outstanding reports but that the inevitable conclusion from those reports is that the vast and complex problems of low-paid workers cannot be solved piecemeal? Is it not time, therefore, for one Minister to devote his full attention to their problems? Will my hon. Friend discuss that with the Secretary of State?

Mr. Grant: The Low Pay Unit has performed some very valuable work, although we do not always agree with all its findings. On the question of a Minister being particularly responsible for the low-paid, I have already discussed the matter with my hon. Friend, and that is what I am now doing.

Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends think that the wages are so lousy, why does he think that they support him in trying to control them to 10 per cent.?

Mr. Grant: I think that I have already answered that question by referring to the overall need.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of unemployed persons in the United Kingdom; how this compares with the number in October 1974; by how many the latest figures will be reduced as a result of the policies outlined recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and over what period this reduction will take place.

Mr. Booth: At 13th October, 1,518,336 people were registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom compared with 640,797 in October 1974. We would hope that the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26th October would, on the economic assumptions which he has spelt out, result in a welcome curtailment in unemployment over the next couple of years.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that those appalling figures are made even worse by the present lack of strategy to overcome unemployment, and particularly the lack of strategy in the recent Budget? Will he accept that in areas such as Wales, where last month the figures got worse—in the rest of the United Kingdom they got better—there is great despondency about the situation, particularly in view of the recent Manpower Services Commission report on the matter? When will the Government bring forward a coherent strategy that quantifies the jobs needed to be created and indicates how these jobs are to be created?

Mr. Booth: No, I do not accept that the figures have been made worse by a lack of strategy. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the House to realise that there are now 413,000 more jobs than there were five years ago. That is in part the result of pursuing an industrial strategy. On the special measures which we are pursuing to deal with a vast increase in unemployment, arising in no small measure from the increase in our working population, we have been able to provide through the temporary employment subsidy for the sustaining of over 340,000 jobs. We have provided over 100,000 jobs for young people through the job creation programme, and there are now in work


experience about 37,000 youngsters. I do not think that those facts square with the hon. Gentleman's allegation that the appalling increase arises from a lack of strategy.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, welcome and important though the temporary measures are, particularly for dealing with unemployment among young people, they are no substitute either for proper training or a permanent job, particularly in regions such as Merseyside, where there is excessively high unemployment among school leavers? Will he therefore consider a scheme, such as is already voluntarily operated by Dunlop in the North-West, of imposing a quota of apprenticeships on employers analogous to the scheme already implemented for the disabled?

Mr. Booth: I accept that many of the special measures that we have run over the past year or two are not as well fitted to the requirements of young people as would be an apprenticeship or some other structured form of vocational training. That is one reason why we are substituting a youth opportunities programme for the job creation work experience programme. Within a youth opportunities programme there is scope, and there is a structure, to meet the needs of young people who require training as well as work experience.
On the wider issue of the requirement for training places in industry and service as a whole, I hope to lay before the House before Christmas proposals to deal with the longer-term problem of how we maintain the levels of intake into training in industry.

Mr. Silvester: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Employment Protection Act is having a bad effect upon the necessary mopping up of unemployment, particularly in relation to small businesses?

Mr. Booth: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that. If he has, I disagree with him.

Construction Industry

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is

the current total of unemployment in the construction industry; and what was the equivalent figure in March 1974.

Mr. John Grant: In August 1977, the latest date for which figures are available, 195,952 workers who had last worked in the construction industry were registered as unemployed. The comparable figure for March 1974 was 113,046.

Mr. Latham: I welcome the limited help in the recent Budget, but will the Minister confirm that the measures announced are likely to make little or no difference to unemployment for the next 12 months and that things may well get worse before they get better?

Mr. Grant: I do not accept that. I think that to describe the help as limited is somewhat churlish. In fact, the Chancellor announced a further £400 million on 26th October, which it is estimated will add about 20,000 jobs in construction and another 10,000 in ancillary industries. So far, during the current year a total of £811 million in assistance has been announced for the construction industry.

Mr. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the construction industry is the most difficult industry of all, and that there is a higher level of unemployment in it than in any other industry? Is he aware that many of us believe that the measures are not sufficient? To try to be constructive, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will indicate what allocations are being made now to local authorities so that they can be ready to start work when the money is available?

Mr. Grant: I accept that what my hon. Friend said was said in a most constructive spirit, but I cannot answer the question. I think that he will recognise that that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Emery: Does the Minister know that the emergency joint committee of the building and civil engineering industries in the South-West estimates that one-third of employers who were in existence 12 months ago will not be able to employ anybody, because they will be bankrupt by next April? Will he therefore ensure that in the allocation of the £400 million in the Chancellor's Budget the South-West gets its full proportion and does


not suffer, as is normally the case, by getting much less than the rest of the country?

Mr. Grant: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

Mr. Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the names of the Chairman and members of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service and state in each case the salary or fees applicable.

Mr. Harold Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Holland: In view of the not infrequent inconsistencies and partiality evident in recent reports on recognition issues, will the Minister consider terminating the appointments of the Chairman and members of ACAS and replacing them with people capable of an objective reaction and able at least to follow their own precedents?

Mr. Walker: That is a wholly unwarranted attack on people who have made a significant contribution to an improvement in industrial relations in this country. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the inconsistency of their approach on the subject of recognition. I deplore the inconsistency of response by some employers, including one who has acquired some notoriety in London.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Minister make urgent inquiries of all parties to see whether ACAS can play a useful rôle in bringing to an end the industrial dispute affecting the engineers servicing lifts, on the ground that there are many thousands of people often in a vulnerable state through old age, or pregnant women, or women in charge of young children, and so on, who are finding it impossible either to get into their flats or to get out of them in the high-rise blocks of the inner cities?

Mr. Walker: Certainly. I think that the whole House wants this dispute to come to as speedy an end as possible. The services of ACAS are available if the parties are willing to call upon them. I must point out to the House that the strike

itself is unofficial, and this, of course, presents obvious difficulties for the intervention of ACAS, but I hope that the parties will look to ACAS and will try to bring this unhappy dispute, which is having such very unfortunate consequences, to a speedy end.

Mr. Gorst: Irrespective of any complaints against the objectivity of the members of ACAS, does the Minister agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in the qualifications of those members who come from the employers' side, particularly with regard to their lack of experience of small businesses?

Mr. Walker: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Council of ACAS. I am bound to bear in mind what he said, but I should have thought that those appointed on the nomination of the CBI were people with experience, and with a distinguished record in industrial relations. When Tory Members jeered as I sat down, they were jeering prematurely. I was about to draw attention to the qualifications of those who had been appointed on the nomination of the TUC and CBI and to point to their wide experience. It is wholly unworthy of Tory Members to attack them in the way that they have done this afternoon.

Following is the information:

The membership of the Council of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is as follows:

Mr. J. E. Mortimer (Chairman)
Professor H. A. Clegg
Mr. H. G. De Ville
Mr. L. F. Edmondson
Mr. H. L. Farrimond
Professor L. C. Hunter
Mr. J. L. Jones
Mr. G. F. Smith
Mr. T. A. Swinden
Professor D. E. C. Wedderburn

The chairman is paid a salary of £16,788.48p per annum, including supplements; the other members receive £1,000 per annum.

CHANCELLOR SCHMIDT

Ql. Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the German Chancellor.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I expect to meet Chancellor Schmidt at the next European Council in Brussels on 5th and 6th December.

Mr. Marten: I applaud some of the Prime Minister's remarks at the Lord Mayor's Banquet last night, and also some of the remarks that he made to the General Secretary of the Labour Party in his letter on the European Community, but will he, when he meets the Chancellor of Germany, stress that we shall not accept fedralism in this country, that we shall retain control over our parliamentary and governmental system here, and that we shall control our legislation here? Does he agree that it is only right and fair, before the enlargement of the Community, that we should make this absolutely clear to our partners and to new members who may be joining the Community?

The Prime Minister: With respect, I do not think that it is necessary to make it clearer than I have done. Indeed, I came in for quite a bit of criticism last time from what I would call professional Europeans—although not from the Heads of Government—about those remarks. I am pretty confident that the views I expressed are widely shared by the Heads of a number of other Governments.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will my right hon. Friend take the first opportunity to express to the German Chancellor the revulsion felt in this country at the proposed visit this week of three former senior SS officers—one of whom was in Hitler's bodyguard—to launch a book designed to whitewash this organisation? As the SS was concerned not only with the killing of British prisoners but with the setting up and operation of Hitler's extermination camps, does he not consider that such a visit would be an extreme provocation to hundreds of thousands of people in this country, and that it ought to be banned?

Mr. Faulds: Like the visit of Mr. Begin.

The Prime Minister: I think that all of this goes to show that we must be very careful about the company we keep on all occasions. As regards the supplementary question of my hon. and learned Friend, the record of that German division is well known and excoriated, but

what happens if these gentlemen offer themselves at the port of entry will, of course, be a matter for the immigration authorities.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether he will dismiss the Secretary of State for the Environment.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 8th November.

Mr. Latham: Will the Prime Minister say unequivocally that neither he nor the Secretary of State has any intention of implementing the half-baked proposals approved at the Labour Party conference last month for the nationalisation of large construction companies and a massive expansion of direct labour departments?

The Prime Minister: The manifesto of the Labour Party will be drawn up in due course, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will read it carefully when it appears.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Does the Prime Minister agree that the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), if he seriously has the welfare of the construction industry at heart, would do better to try to persuade some Conservative-controlled local authorities which are quite unnecessarily cutting back housing programmes to get those programmes under way? That would have some effect on the unemployment figures.

The Prime Minister: I understand that a number of local authorities have accumulated substantial balances, in some cases because of the drop in interest rates. I hope that they will maintain and, indeed, improve on the housing programme that has been established.

Mrs. Thatcher: If the Prime Minister will not reject the proposals for the nationalisation of construction companies contained in the Labour Party programme, will he at least reject the wholesale proposals for nationalisation and State direction of the other 31 sectors of industry contained in that programme?

The Prime Minister: My answer remains the same as it was to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham).

Mrs. Thatcher: If the Prime Minister's answer remains the same, will he tell us what the answer was? Does he repudiate that programme, or does he approve it?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady did not hear what I said. I said that no doubt, in due course, when the manifesto is published, both she and the hon. Member for Melton will read it.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is that programme alive or dead?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady does not get the date of the General Election out of me in that way.

Mr. James Lamond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to dismiss the Secretary of State for the Environment it would cause a great deal of distress among my constituents including, in particular, the Tory leader of the council, who only last week was delighted to hear the announcement that the Oldham Metropolitan Borough was to receive an additional £1 million annually to assist with its difficulties? Is he aware that Councillor Geoffrey Webb, the Tory leader, described that news as most gratifying?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am finding a great deal of satisfaction among Conservative-controlled local authorities at the fact that we have managed to reduce interest rates so that they are much lower than they were when the Conservative Party was last in office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is performing his duties with his usual diligence and ability and, I understand, to general satisfaction.

Mr. Percival: If the Secretary of State is to remain in his employment, will the Prime Minister have an early word with him about the damage caused by the recent gales in the North-West, and particularly in Southport? A large number of my constituents have suffered heartbreaking damage to their homes and belongings. Their response to the tragedy has been magnificent, but they are very worried and it would be a great help to them, and to the Sefton Borough Council

—which has also risen splendidly to the occasion—if the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friend were able to give further consideration to what might be done.

The Prime Minister: I received a telegram this morning from the mayors of Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre asking for Government financial assistance because of the damage that has been suffered on that coast. I have already asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to look into this matter—that is another reason why he should not be dismissed —and he has undertaken to do so. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, there is no fund available for this purpose, but there are certain facilities that could be made available. I readily agree that when the three mayors have informed me, as they have told me they will, of the additional assistance that will be required, the Government will be ready to look into the matter.

Mr. Loyden: May I ask my right hon. Friend, instead of dismissing the Secretary of State for the Environment, to consult him about the question of the resources that are made available by Government to local authorities? Is he aware that I believe that these resources require greater scrutiny and that the present situation is quite ridiculous because certain local authorities have a surplus of unused capital for housing, whereas other areas, with great housing stress, are in need of such finance?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly take up that point with my right hon. Friend. He is at present meeting local authorities on the subject of the rate support grant for next year. I do not know whether local authorities have raised this matter with him at those meetings, but clearly he will want to take all these factors into account when he makes his announcement.

Mr. Clegg: Will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to visit the Lancashire coast to see the abject misery from which many of my constituents are now suffering? I do not think my constituents find this a laughing matter when they have spring water flooding through their houses. I am anxious that a Minister should see the situation, because it is still dangerous.

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly convey that request to my right hon. Friend, but I believe that the local authorities have acted with great speed on the matter. A number of people have had their homes flooded, and a great deal of damage has been done. The House will sympathise with those who have suffered in this way. I cannot go further now than to say that when we receive further information about the extent of the damage, and the sums of money involved, the Government will give careful consideration to what is proposed.

Mr. Tom King: If the Prime Minister is not willing to sack the Secretary of State for the Environment, has he noticed the Early-Day Motion inviting him to sack the Secretary of State for Energy? Is it the Prime Minister's judgment that the Secretary of State for Energy has done more damage by keeping quiet, as in the case of the miners' productivity bonus—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a separate question and should be put on the Order Paper.

CBI

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the CBI.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 10th November.

Mr. Roberts: No doubt the Prime Minister is studying reports of the proceedings at this week's CBI conference. Does he agree with the general view, expressed yesterday, that the present pay bargaining system is a total failure, in that it has failed to raise living standards in this country and has contributed to inflation, low productivity and high unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I do not know that I am called upon to express a view on the opinions of the Director General, but, whoever expressed such views, it would be unfortunate to dismiss the collective bargaining system that exists until somebody brought forward something that would be both better and acceptable to put in its place.

Mr. Roy Hughes: When the Prime Minister next meets the CBI, will he impress upon it the need for all sections of British industry to use British steel in the manufacture of their products, so that thereby we may avoid in future reports such as those currently appearing in the Press that the BSC is again contemplating making 20,000 steelworkers redundant?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall certainly draw that to the attention of all manufacturers and industrialists who are at present using steel. A very difficult situation has grown up in the steel industry throughout the world, and the Government are giving the matter a great deal of urgent attention.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 15th November 1977.

The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Foreign Minister of Romania.

Mr. Ridley: Will the Prime Minister be able to take time off this afternoon to ponder the fact that the British Steel Corporation has, since it was nationalised, lost its share of the market? Its share of the United Kingdom market has gone down from 76 per cent. to 53 per cent. while the Corporation has taken £3,000 million of our capital and has lost billions on revenue account, too. Will the Prime Minister consider that it might have been possible to restore the cuts in education, to have enough kidney machines and to look after the social services properly if it had not been for the extraordinary failure of nationalisation in this instance?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing his usual vendetta, but it does not bear much relation to the facts. The steel industry throughout the world, as he knows very well, is suffering a very great deal from the recession. Indeed, I read in the Economist last weekend that the Bethlehem Steel Company alone—just one company in the United States—had lost over $400 million


in the third quarter. This is an international problem and cannot be solved by any party claptrap about nationalisation.

Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are aware of the policies of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on the nationalised industries, and that had it not been for the commitment of the Labour Government to the steel industry, which we hope will continue and grow more generous and more definite, we should have had a decimated steel industry that would have been neither able to produce the materials to make kidney machines nor the money for this country to be able to pay for their production, servicing, maintenance and provision?

The Prime Minister: The steel industry is an efficient industry, but there is room for substantially increased productivity. Certainly nationalisation has nothing to do with this matter—

Mr. Ridley: Oh, yes, it has.

The Prime Minister: I cannot remember whether the hon. Member had been dismissed from the Department of Industry before Rolls-Royce was nationalised.

PRINCESS ANNE (BIRTH OF A SON)

Mrs. Thatcher: Would it be in order to ask the Prime Minister to find time today not only to express the congratulations of the Government to Princess

Anne on the birth of her child but to express the congratulations of the House?

The Prime Minister: I shall be very happy indeed to do so, because I am sure that that would be the general wish and view of the House. Whether a child be a commoner or a Royal child, the birth of a child to a family is always something which everybody is delighted to welcome. I have already conveyed a formal message to Princess Anne on behalf of the Government, and I have myself written to Her Majesty the Queen. I shall be very happy indeed to reinforce that.

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that as Speaker I sent a telegram of congratulations to the Royal Family.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Mr. Speaker: To save the time of the House, unless there is objection I propose to put the Question on the two motions together.

Ordered,

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 5) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the National Health Service (Association of Community Health Councils—Establishment) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

FIRE SERVICE (DISPUTE)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

Leave having been given on Monday 14th November under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:

The grave threat to public safety and the future of the Fire Service now that the firemen are on strike.

Because of the rules of the House, it is not possible to move a more substantive motion than that on this issue. But I draw the attention of the House to Early-Day Motion No. 39, which states
That this House believes the members of the Fire Service have a just case and are engaged on work in circumstances requiring special consideration over pay and conditions; and calls for meaningful negotiations between the Government, local authorities and the Fire Brigades Union to reach a new pay arrangement which recognises the need to be both flexible and fair.
There is considerable significance in the words "flexible and fair", to which I shall come later in my remarks.

It may well be that a number of my hon. Friends and I will feel the necessity later this evening to divide the House on this technical question of the Adjournment. But I hope, if that arises, that no one will go into the Lobby with myself and my hon. Friends other than on the issue of the firemen's strike and that no one will take advantage of that situation to try to cause political embarrassment for the Government. I believe that the situation which faces us at present far transcends any party political manoeuvre, even in an Election year. The question whether there will be a Division will depend largely upon what is said by the Home Secretary.

The first time that I visited the Houses of Parliament was as a young fireman in the 1960s, and I was down here on the question of wages and conditions. I was also down here as a member of the Fire Brigades Union lobby of Members of Parliament to talk and argue about improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Fire Service. It is a marked feature of the Fire Brigades Union that it has been more concerned with the dedication of the men for the job and concern for the effectiveness of the Fire Service when it gets to a fire and tends to the

needs of the public than it has been with pay and conditions.

Most of my adult life has been associated with the Fire Brigade Union, and I should declare an interest. I am an out of-trade member of that union. My brother is a member of the Fire Brigades Union now on strike and, as he usually buys the pints at the weekend, I suppose I have an indirect pecuniary interest. I have always felt considerable pride in being associated with the Fire Brigades Union. The hallmark of the Fire Brigades Union—when I first joined it under the leadership of John Horner, then of T. Parry; Enoch Humphries, the President, has just retired, and now Wilf Barber is the new President—has always been a concern about the service given by the men on the fire stations to the general public.

It is an absolute tragedy that men in that service and that union find themselves on the street at this time, especially when there is a Labour Government in power. How did this situation arise? It is due to the wages policy. It is well known that I am not sympathetic to the Government's position on wages policy. I hold to exactly the same position as the Labour Party had in October and February 1974 when we recognised the crass stupidity of having a wages policy that had no flexibility.

Indeed, part of the reason that the firemen are on strike now is that they, more than most groups, have suffered grievously under repeated wages policies. The first time I came here was as a young fireman. That visit came after a massive public campaign when we actually went round the doors in the towns that we served, delivering pamphlets and asking the general public to give us their support. We got a settlement at 12 noon and, at 4 p.m. under the Selwyn Lloyd wages policy, we were told that we could not have it.

If hon. Members care to look up the records of the firemen on wages policy—the Fire Brigades Union has today delivered to the House a number of letters to each Member of Parliament explaining the firemen's position—they will see that on wage policy after wage policy the guillotine came down on the firemen more often than it ever came down on any other group.

The current wages situation began with phase 1 of the agreement between the TUC and the Government. No one can complain that in phase 1 and phase 2 the Government acted independently of the Labour movement. Both phases were with the total agreement of the TUC. Indeed, there was the unusual feature of White Papers containing annexes from the General Council of the TUC.

That cannot be said about phase 3. There is no agreement with the TUC on phase 3, except on one particularly important issue, which is the 12-month rule. I hope that no one on the Government Front Bench will say this afternoon what some of the Ministers in the Department of Employment have written to me—that they have the approval of the House for the policy they are pursuing in respect of the 10 per cent. limit because the House gave a vote in favour of the last White Paper.

The Government cannot have it every way. Certainly, the House voted on the White Paper, but that White Paper itself contains the disclaimer from the TUC in respect of the 10 per cent. limit. So the Government cannot have some parts of the White Paper and not others. If the Government want a rigid wages policy, they should have the guts to bring forward a statutory incomes policy. But everyone here knows that that would never be carried in the House.

Phase 3 has always been the difficult re-entry period. All prices and incomes policies have collapsed in phase 3, and it is not difficult to understand why that is so. Indeed, members of the present Cabinet should know all about the problem of phase 3, because it was phase 3 that they inherited when Labour returned to office in February 1974.

In making a statement on the Fire Service the other day, the Home Secretary made a slip of the tongue when he said—I paraphrase his words—that we are now entering the difficult period of phase 3 after a statutory incomes policy. It was a slip of the tongue, because we have not had a statutory policy. But the policy we had in phase 1 and phase 2 has been just as rigid as any statutory policy. So, in essence, there is no difference in our phase 3 problem from the phase 3 problems created by the Conservative Party when it was in Government.

I shall argue in the course of my remarks that, as one enters phase 3, one must recognise exceptional cases, and that should be no new experience for the Government. When the Lord President of the Council was Secretary of State for Employment, he said in the House on 6th May 1974, explaining that he would operate the consent powers under the Counter-Inflation Act:
We want to see a smooth transition from statutory controls to voluntary methods, using the limited powers of consent available under existing legislation to ease the most exceptional difficulties.
He went on to say later:
However, it is borne in on me daily how many difficulties are created by the present controls, and I have made clear that I have no power to issue a consent except where the circumstances are truly exceptional.

One of the truly exceptional circumstances referred to in the next sentence by my right hon. Friend was the case of the Glasgow firemen at that particular time, also that of the Hull freezer trawlers. The Lord President said this later:
I am still considering the extremely strong case put to me last week by London Transport and the various unions involved. This raises urgent questions in the light of the necessity to sustain the public transport system in the capital city."—[Official Report, 6th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 29–31.]

If it was an exceptional circumstance in 1974 under a Tory phase 3 to sustain essential transport services, how much more of an exceptional circumstance is it under Labour's phase 3 to maintain the life-and-death service of the fire brigade in London and elsewhere? So the proposition of exceptional circumstance, the need for flexibility in phase 3, is certainly not new to the Government Front Bench.

The great tragedy if my right hon. Friends continue with their attitude to the firemen, of saying that 10 per cent. is the limit and no more, is that they will find themselves exactly where the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was in the autumn and winter of 1973–74, adopting a Maginot Line mentality that could not give and that inevitably invited confrontation. There is little point in the Home Secretary saying that the Government are not seeking confrontation. No member of the Fire Brigades Union would ever accuse them of that. I certainly do not accuse them of that. But that is


the inevitable consequence of saying "Ten per cent. it is and 10 per cent. is a rigid factor that will not change".

If there is to be a sensible return to collective bargaining, there must be a recognition of special cases. There must be a recognition of the need for flexibility. That recognition of the need for flexibility was put to the Fire Brigades Union annual conference in May this year by no less a person than the Home Secretary himself.

In the Library of the House there is a news release from the Home Office. It is dated 18th May and is headed:
New pay arrangements must be flexible and fair: Home Secretary warns against wages explosion.
The Home Secretary addressed the annual conference of the Fire Brigades Union as the fraternal delegate from the Labour Party. The handout states:
… the right hon. Merlyn Rees M.P. spoke of the need for pay arrangements which were both flexible and fair.
Those are the very words we use in our Early-Day Motion. My right hon. Friend continued:
What we want to see now is the widest possible discussion between the TUC and the Government, within the Trade Union movement, and outside, about how we can beat inflation; about how we can avoid a wages explosion, but at the same time ensure that any new pay arrangements are both flexible and fair.
My right hon. Friend went on:
I do not believe that we can continue with the rigid policies that we have—necessarily—had for the past two years. I think it is clear that we must look at ways of building more flexibility into the arrangements; we must see if we can give negotiators more elbow room to deal with some of the difficulties which two years of 'rough justice' have undoubtedly caused. What this adds up to is a way of easing a path back to normal collective bargaining, in an orderly and planned fashion, which lets us maintain an effective grip on inflation.

So my right hon. Friend went to the firemen's conference in May at the end of phase 2 and said that when we come to phase 3 flexibility and fairness would be the guiding principles in respect of phase 3. Then we wonder why the firemen are angry at being told that there is a fairly rigid policy in phase 3!

It is not as though the Government—and the Opposition—do not recognise that there are special cases. The Government have recognised that the police are

a special case by the acceptance of a police inquiry and a forward commitment to what the inquiry says. The Opposition have declared to everyone who will listen that they regard the police as a special case. I, too, regard them as special. But I am going to argue that the firemen are a very special case, and I think that I can prove it.

I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that there are others who are receiving increases beyond 10 per cent. I also say to my right hon. and hon. Friends, many of whom have great experience of the trade union movement and who know what is going on in industry at present in respect of productivity deals, fringe benefits and so on, that we all know that settlements are more likely to be nearer to 15 per cent. than to 10 per cent. Knowing that, it is almost criminal that we keep the firemen on the street for 10 per cent.

I argue that the firemen are a very special case because of the nature of their job. Outside the Armed Forces, I believe that they are indeed very special. The firemen's job is to go into buildings, factories and houses and risk their lives when everyone else is trying to get out of those buildings to save their lives.

There was an article in The Times of 10th November which is well worth reading. It states:
Heads turned in Forest Gate, East London, on Tuesday night when engine F21 and another pump answered a call to a terrace house. The glamour would have been rapidly dispelled at the sight of a 55-year-old dying after self-immolation with paraffin.
Men of 'red watch' based at Stratford fire station gathered round her as she lay moaning, her body a mess of burns.
That did not quite compare with a case of a woman's body exploding in the heat. It lacked the drama of the Moorgate train disaster or the explosion at Ronan Point, which many of the crew attended.
At Moorgate conditions were so bad that the Salvation Army dropped its scruples and served whisky to the firemen.

There are many things within fire stations that are kept private—the type of horror with which firemen deal, for example. They do not normally talk about it to the general public or to Members of Parliament. It is one of those things which tend to be kept inside because there is no point in distributing the horror around. But I shall give one


or two examples of the horror—not simply to secure an emotional response to the fireman but as part of his job description. It is one of the reasons why he is a very special case, and is taken from my own knowledge of the Fire Service.

I can remember being called out on a very windy Saturday afternoon to clear up a family home after a chimney head had crashed down two storeys and into a kitchen. The family had been gathered round a six months' old baby who was sitting in the middle of the family circle —the centre of attention—when the falling chimney head had killed the child in full view of there all. Within minutes, it was the responsibility of my watch to attend to that disaster, to console the family and to clear up the problem that had been created—if, indeed, "problem" is an apt description.

There was another case, in which three young people were travelling in a mini-car one Saturday night. The car crashed and the two people in the front seat were thrown clear, but a girl was trapped in the back. The car caught fire and the firemen could not reach the girl as she screamed her way to a horrific death. A fireman tells me that frequently, when he falls asleep at night, he has nightmares about attending incidents of that type.

Another friend of mine, who is now retired from the fire service, went to a fire which had started when a young woman had been doing her ironing in the kitchen. The baby's cradle was near the ironing board, and at that time paraffin heaters were frequently used. The girl had fainted, knocked the paraffin heater over the cradle and the child, and, when she came to, found that she had been carried outside the home. It was my friend's job to hold down that demented girl while her baby roasted inside, as the rest of the firemen tried to overcome the blaze. My friend never recovered from that experience.

That is the nature of fire-fighting. What the public regards as the difficult, dramatic fire is often, in many ways, the easiest type of fire for men to attend—the sort of fire where flames are shooting out all over the place and the roof has already gone; when one can stand 30 yards back to fight it because the building is on its

way to being gutted. The really difficult job for the fireman is that which the public does not regard as dramatic, where the basement of a building is totally smoke-logged and the job is to go in, find the seat of the fire, and put it out.

I remind hon. Members that when a fireman dons breathing apparatus and enters a smoke-filled atmosphere, he is literally stepping into the unknown. If he goes into a factory, he does not know whether chemicals will explode, or whether there is a lift shaft and he will fall four storeys on to a concrete floor. It takes a tremendous amount of guts and commitment to engage in fire-fighting. Imagine a fire in a basement, where the smoke and heat have not been allowed to escape because there is no ventilation. It is like stepping into the jaws of Hell. I believe that that is what makes the job very special and I believe that the public recognise that fact.

There is also the question of morality. When the Home Secretary appeared on television the other night, he asked the highly emotive question: would the firemen let women and children burn? I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether he would let women and children burn. Of course there is a moral commitment on the firemen, but there is also a moral commitment on the Government, on this House and on the general public.

Perhaps the best way I can describe that commitment is to quote from an article that I wrote at the time of the Glasgow firemen's strike. Incidentally, I did not support that strike, because it was against trade union policy. This is what I said then:
To the public may I explain that I know how the men are feeling, because I have been through the experience of being a fireman, driven to the limit by the frustration of working in a dangerous job for long hours on low pay.
When I was a fireman, the strike weapon was discussed frequently in fire stations. All the moral arguments were thrashed out on both sides.
I emphasise 'both sides' because many people can see only one side—that which affects the public. There is another side.
Firemen are used to public acclaim of their bravery and dedication to a dangerous job. They have come to expect sympathy by the bucketful plus flowers and fine words if they are killed at fires.
To many firemen it seems that public and government are concerned more with doing


honour to dead firemen—which does not cost the ratepayer or taxpayer very much—than with meeting the needs of living firemen.
Firemen also feel their inborn sense of moral duty, to answer life or death calls, has been used against them time and time again.
I can remember a previous pay dispute and the terrible frustration I felt on being done out of a wage rise by a Government.
I felt then that my moral code was being taken advantage of, and that my wife and family were paying a heavy price for my moral scruples.
My mates and I felt like striking—but we did not. We could not bring ourselves to withhold life from people.
But firemen ask: 'Is it fair that my moral code is used to hamstring my efforts to get a decent wage. Has the public not a moral duty to me to see that I am not penalised and get a decent wage?'
So far, as firemen will point out, the code of morality has worked too much the one way, with the public continuing to get their fire protection and the men getting too little financial reward in return.

I think that sums up adequately the case of the firemen at the present time. Morality must work both ways. As one lad said the other night, "Conscience does not meet the wife's needs when she holds out her hand for the pay on a Thursday".

No. one, Mr. Speaker, can say that firemen are impatient or callous. This is the first national strike of firemen ever, and it is the wish of every fireman that it is the last national strike of firemen.

The Home Secretary asked whether firemen would stand by and watch people burn. He had his answer at Poplar and at Strathclyde—the answer is "No". They will not stand by and watch people burn. The men who are picketing fire stations at the moment are in an agony of apprehension about the consequences of their strike. They believe—quite rightly—that they have been driven to this particular position.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I have an important question to put to the Home Secretary concerning the legal status of the firemen pickets who go into a building to save lives, and who might themselves in that circumstance be killed or injured. Some of them are going in without the normal protective clothing or fire equipment. What is their legal status under the Fire Service Pension Fund? Will they be covered if that happens?

I met this morning some of the lads who are lobbying Parliament. I asked them if they had thought about that aspect. They said, "It seems to be an ill-defined position but it will not make any difference. We will go in and save someone's life regardless." I believe that says a great deal for the firemen involved. I say to my right hon. Friend—and I gave his office notice earlier—that it is important that we get an answer to that question.

I believe that the fault for the strike lies firmly with the Government—it is the fault of the Government and not of the firemen. If the Government and society insist that the firemen heed the needs of society, then society and its Government must heed the needs of our firemen. It may be that the Government and the Home Secretary are taking a calculated risk that something will happen somewhere and an incident will occur which will turn public opinion against the firemen, and the firemen will ultimately be driven back defeated. That may well be the case, and the firemen recognise it.

Another reason for asking for the debate, Mr. Speaker, was the effect on the Fire Service itself of this strike and its aftermath. I have had discussions with members and officials of the Fire Brigades Union, and they want me to impress upon the House their concern about the future of the Fire Service if this strike is allowed to continue for much longer. One requires an enormous commitment and dedication to enter a fire—it is not the easiest thing to do. A demoralised Fire Service would be of no use to the community, even if the community scored a spectacular pay policy success over the firemen.

I therefore beg the Government—I use the word "beg" advisedly—to consider the implications of this situation for the Fire Service. If men are to go into a fire as a fire-fighting team—and the word "team" is all-important—they must have the utmost consideration for and confidence in their mates, a wonderful ésprit de corps, and camaraderie. If the firemen's strike continues, and if they are eventually driven back by one circumstance or another, there will be a lot of ill-feeling. There will be a lot of bitterness. Some will for ever be labelled blacklegs.

Already problems are being created between the full-time and the part-time men. How can any fire officer command on the fire ground if his fire crews are at one another's throats because of a historical factor; because of one man blacklegging in the firemen's strike and another not blacklegging? How can full-time stations service the part-time stations if the full-timers think that the part-timers were partly responsible for breaking their strike?

The demoralisation of the Fire Service will be upon us if we allow this dispute to continue much longer without resolution. It is extremely important that we maintain the morale, commitment and teamwork of firemen, and that will never be the case if the firemen are defeated in the manner being urged upon the Government by the Press.

I earnestly ask the Government to take the opportunity presented by this debate to call in the local authorities on one side of the National Joint Council and the Fire Brigades Union on the other.

Let the Government put their general view on pay policy—as they are bound to do, as legitimately they must do—but let them tell both sides that they are free to negotiate. To quote the words of my right hon. Friend to the firemen's union conference,
Give the negotiators elbow room.
There is room.

It is not my job here, as a Member of the House, to make detailed suggestions—I am not authorised to do so—on behalf of the men or the union or anything of that nature. I am speaking as an individual Member of the House. There is room for negotiation. Firemen do not get paid for Saturdays and Sundays—they are merely normal working days—so there is room for negotiation. The 48-hour week will become a 42-hour week in 12 months from now, so, in a sense, the firemen are earning their productivity between now and next autumn by working 48 hours. There are six hours to play around with in terms of negotiation.

There is also the question of the consolidation of phases 1 and 2, in the basic pensionable pay. There is the possibility of a working inquiry of the kind that has been accepted for the police, with the

same forward commitment as for the police. Given the situation of the Fire Service, there are many ways in which, with flexibility—to use another word used by my right hon. Friend—the problem can be overcome. The Government would be foolish to believe that a hard-line attitude towards the firemen will, in a sense, be a victory for the pay policy.

Naturally, firemen are almost instinctively going out to save lives, but they are not going into industrial or other properties if lives are not involved. How would Members of the House, especially hon. Gentlemen opposite, like to be the underwriters of fire insurance policies for industry and households at the present time? There is a great deal of industrial capital at risk, and it will remain at risk even if lives are saved.

I do not believe that there is public pressure on the firemen. I have been round London fire stations, and they are gaining massive support from the public on the basis of petitions. Nor do I believe that the public will think that the Government's pay policy has caved in if the Government say that the firemen are a very special case and that negotiations must take place. The public did not take that attitude when the Government responded to the police. I believe that there would be a sigh of relief from the general public if the Government, the firemen and their employers finally got together and fire cover for the public was resumed as soon as possible.

Finally—and I apologise for taking so much time—I ask the Government to show some sense in this matter, based on flexibility and fairness. The one thing that I am able to say on behalf of the Fire Brigades Union is that it is not seeking confrontation. It is not seeking to smash the wages policy or to bring down a Labour Government. It is merely seeking a fair deal for its members who do an exceedingly dangerous task for the rest of society.

I ask the Government to show sense and flexibility so that our firemen can return to their work at an early date, knowing that we in this House and the people whom we represent outside acknowledge their work, their significance and their special contribution to our society.

4.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): If it is convenient to the House, I think that it would be valuable for me to put the Government's views now and, if it is the wish of the House, and depending upon what arises, to reply briefly later. What I should like to do is to divide what I have to say into two parts. It is absolutely right that we should debate the matter. The pay aspect is of the greatest importance. However, perhaps I should say a brief word about the situation in the country.
There is no point in going over the preparations that the Government made—the 10,000 soldiers, the 700 "green goddesses" and their distribution round the country, the guidance and advertisements. That is now in the past. It was done with the aim of saving life. From the reports that I have received it seems that the pattern today is the same as yesterday. There have been fewer calls than usual. It is too early to say whether that is because people are taking more preventive action to see that there are no fires.
There have been an irritating number of hoax calls—far too many all over the country, but the proportion in the urban areas is unusually high. I have spoken to the police and dealt with the matter in other ways, and we are checking on these calls. I simply remind those who are making these calls—in one area a third of the calls were hoax calls—that it is a criminal offence and that we are taking steps to see that they are brought before the courts.
So far there have been two deaths in England and Wales—one in Tyne and Wear and one in Cornwall. I am advised that, judging from the circumstances, it is likely that they would have occurred in normal circumstances.
The strike seems to remain widespread. The majority of retained stations—that is, in the rural areas—are reported to be available to respond to calls, but in some instances they are restricting their attendance to calls in their own areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) was good enough to telephone my office before the debate started concerning the legal position of firemen. The reply that I can give him

is that a fireman on strike does not cease to be a member of a brigade, so the provisions of the firemen's pension scheme about members of brigades killed or injured on duty would still apply.
I come now to the strike itself, and it is right that we should consider it. What I should like to do, because they are the matters that will have to be negotiated about and are being negotiated about, is to put some of the issues on the record. The negotiations, however, take place in the NJC with the Fire Brigades Union, the local authorities and other unions representing other members of the Fire Service. The point that I think is of the greatest importance is where the negotiations should take place. I have no wish to break the negotiating procedures that take place in the NJC. In talking about it today—my hon. Friend certainly has not done so—anything that we say here must not be such as to exacerbate the dispute and certainly nothing that would make negotiations more difficult, because it is negotiation that is the way of settling this dispute.
My hon. Friend referred to a number of things that have happened in the past. In 1975 and 1976 the NJC, where the negotiations take place, agreed to settlements, as he fairly said, in accordance with phase 1 and phase 2. This year, on 21st September, the union submitted a claim to the employers' side of the NJC for a pay increase from 7th November. The claim was that qualified firemen should receive an annual salary equivalent to the total of the average weekly earnings of adult male workers plus 10 per cent. to take account of the range of skills required of qualified firemen, as identified in the NJC's agreed job description, and to recognise the physical hazards and dangers faced by firemen.
The union claimed that that would mean a salary of about £4,500 per annum, compared with £3,400 that qualified firemen now receive. This was an increase of about 31 per cent. That was the claim about which the negotiators have been talking. The claim of 31 per cent. in September which referred to the recommendations of the small group from both sides of the NJC, chaired by Lord McCarthy, was well outside the present guidelines, and I ask both sides of the House to consider that.
We are talking not about a claim that is just over 10 per cent., or flexibility of that sort, but about 31 per cent. now. My hon. Friend talks about other wage negotiations in which I have been involved and in which settlements have been agreed. I remind him that there was no payment other than 10 per cent.
After discussions with the Government, on 3rd November the employers' side of the NJC offered three things with effect from 7th November. The first was 10 per cent. immediately on earnings. The second was negotiations on a reduction in working hours from 48 to 42. The Government had told the NJC that they would be prepared to see that negotiated and, although the reduction could not be implemented before the autumn of 1978, detailed preparations could begin before then. I shall not go into that now, because the negotiations have to take place in the NJC.
As my hon. Friend knows, there are discussions not just on the speed with which extra firemen are trained and the way in which they are used on a roster system, but on the basis of the variant throughout the country of the number of hours that men are stood down within each brigade. All that is for negotiation.
Thirdly, there were to be negotiations on establishing a formula—a benchmark—for determining Fire Service pay. Because the negotiations on this issue have been going on and are taking place now, we said that the Government was closely following the discussions on this, but that the phasing of any further pay increase would have to be considered in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time. As I understand the matter, this is what was recommended to the Fire Brigades Union's conference and was rejected in favour of the 31 per cent. and the strike.
I put it to the House that there were three aspects to the offer that was made. There were the 10 per cent., the benchmark, and the negotiations on hours, and I should like to look at these one by one.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My right hon. Friend mentioned Lord McCarthy's report—

Mr. Rees: I am just coming to that. I shall consider each part of the offer in turn, and I hope that my hon. Friend

will see the relevance of the McCarthy report.
With regard to the 10 per cent., my hon. Friend said that this was no different from what had been offered before in terms of pay policy. I understand that the figures that the Fire Brigades Union has circulated have been based on take home pay after superannuation, and so on, and that they were presented very fairly. If one is talking about a man after six months' service who, during the second year, is on £2,863 a year, one sees that 10 per cent. is an annual increase of £286, and that is not a small figure.
My hon. Friend said that this was no different from what had been offered before, I remind him that in terms of the current economic situation, the fall in interest rates and in prices, too, there is now a different background to this aspect of pay policy. It is vital above all not to throw out of gear the improving pace of economic advance, because that is of advantage to us all.
People talk about special cases. I have had a great deal to do with the Fire Brigades Union over a number of years, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire put its case to the House extremely fairly. But the point is that a number of people in industry in general can also put forward a special case. I must make it clear, as I did with the police negotiations, that as of now the 10 per cent. is important, that we cannot move outside our guidelines, and that what the local authority negotiators are dealing with is a claim for 30 per cent. now, which marks it out as different from claims that have been made by other people.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend accept and acknowledge that there have been exceptions to this so-called 10 per cent. rule? The Royal Family were generously treated in this matter, and others, including Ford workers—although only marginally, it is true—have been treated as a special case for some reason.
Many people have evaded every incomes policy that has been invented or put forward by any Government, including the multitude of people who, in the main, are self-employed and are never corralled into any collective form of incomes policy. Will he also acknowledge that


the TUC does not accept the 10 per cent. rule, and that it is not a statutory policy?
Nor, to my knowledge, has it ever had the blessing of the House of Commons. Taking all these things into account, and the terrible occurrences that may take place arising from—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) not to intervene at too great a length. The debate is very short.

Mr. Rees: I simply say to my hon. Friend that the local authorities that do the negotiating are faced with a claim for 31 per cent. now. There is no comparison with Ford and the others my hon. Friend has mentioned. Whatever is said outside, in this developing situation, as we move from the voluntary policy with the fixed figures, it is most important for the Government, in order to get the full benefit as the months go on, to stay within guidelines on the pay which they themselves control, or on which they at least have an influence.

Mr. Sillars: My right hon. Friend has quite rightly said that at one end of the negotiating posture is a 31 per cent. claim and at the other end 10 per cent. Would he not regard it as normal, sensible and flexible to say that there should be negotiation and a give-and-take in that negotiation, and that the firemen may have to give as well as asking the Government to give on the other side? Is he sticking rigidly to 10 per cent.?

Mr. Rees: The Government are sticking to pay policy within the guidelines, as we have said. This is the difficulty in the House of Commons when we speak of negotiations. The FBU's commitment is to 31 per cent., returning to conference, and so on. I think that it would be a mistake to become involved in discussing that now.
I turn now to the second and third points of the negotiations. The Fire Brigades Union wants a benchmark. It wants a stable reference point for future wage settlements. That, indeed, featured at its conference this year, which I attended. Let me put this in perspective, because its aim in this respect has been stated for some time.
There was the Cunningham Report of 1971, which followed a fact-finding inquiry, evaluating and comparing with other jobs of similar content and responsibility. There was the NJC working party—I note the date, May 1977—which sets out the factors that go towards making a qualified fireman, bearing in mind many of the factors that my hon. Friend has mentioned—not only the qualifications, but the stresses and strains of the job.
Later on, when Lord McCarthy was involved—the inquiry started in August—the effect was to put a price on the analysis made by the NJC working party. I have the report here. In paragraph 4 Lord McCarthy says:
It follows from this that the most appropriate comparison to make is with the generality of jobs in the community. Against a broad benchmark of this kind discussion can take place on any special features of the qualified fireman's job. We therefore recommend that the National Joint Council should begin early discussions on this".
It did not finalise the point; what McCarthy recommended were the discussions.
What we have said on this point of the benchmark was the point that I made just now—that the Government recognise the need to establish a formula for determining Fire Service pay. The Government welcome the fact that the NJC is seeking, through established negotiating procedures, to achieve that. The Government are following closely discussion on this subject in the NJC—we are not represented there—but the phasing of any further pay increase will have to be considered in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time.
So that is the second one: the benchmark. As my hon. Friend knows, this aspect has loomed in union thinking for some time.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is not the firemen's point that they have had six years of discussion, from the Cunningham Report through the 1974 National Joint Council up to the McCarthy Report? What I assume they are looking for is some commitment from the Government similar to the commitment on the police, that it will not be another three or four years of further negotiations and subject to other pay


policies which will put them off yet again and again.

Mr. Rees: Instead of drawing an analogy with any other group where there happens to be an independent inquiry because the negotiating procedures had broken down and the benchmark figure was not being achieved, all I recommend the hon. Gentleman to do is to see what has happened there. Of course it is important to have the benchmark, but there is discussion in the proper place about what that benchmark shall be. What we said to the firemen a week ago was that there cart be no commitment on the phasing of that because it is difficult to know what the situation would be at an appropriate time, when one could take a decision on it.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: If the firemen are not to continue to feel that they are going to be fobbed off once again, must not my right hon. Friend go further than saying that the Government recognise the need for a formula? Will he not say categorically that the Government will accept any formula that comes out of the negotiations in the NJC and will phase it in under pay policy in the same way as they are going to do for other groups, such as the police?

Mr. Rees: There have been no commitments on phasing with anybody else and I cannot do it for the firemen.

Mrs. Castle: Say that the Government will accept the formula.

Mr. Rees: On the point about accepting the formula, the difference is that discussions are taking place on this formula in the NJC. It is a matter for the NJC when it comes to an agreement on that, and only in August did Lord McCarthy start his investigation and his report. It is a matter for the NJC, on which the Government are not represented.
I come to the 40-hour week. My hon. Friend was good enough to quote what I said at the conference earlier this year. What I said was:
Now I want to speak about the 40-hour week. I know very well the importance you attach to a reduction from the present 48-hour week to a 40-hour week, particularly as the trend in other occupations is towards a working week shorter than 40 hours. In March"—
that was a few weeks before—
I had to tell your Executive frankly that I could not give them any commitment or under-

taking about the introduction of a 40-hour week. For me to have done so would have been contrary to the current pay policy guidelines"—
that is, phase 2—
agreed between the Government and the TUC, and could not be reconciled with the limitations on local government expenditure to which the Government is committed.
I must await the outcome of the inquiry.
My hon. Friend used the word "flexibility". We have now—and I quoted it just now—made it clear that in the negotiating machinery negotiations can now begin for the reduction in hours to 42 following the feasibility study. I regard that as flexibility. That is one of the most important things that the Fire Brigades Union has wanted for years, and indeed it is the point that the firemen were putting to me at that conference in the early part of the year.
In that issue of the Firefighter, which I checked today, this was said:
The Home Secretary did not duck the issue. In as many words he said that under present policy it was not on. He promised his best efforts on behalf of firemen, but he reminded everybody that a reduction of eight hours in the working week could not be achieved without a substantial increase in manpower and expenditure, and the expenditure 'could not be provided under present Government policy'.
That is what I said in May, and now, at this end of the year, the firemen can start negotiating in the proper way—and there is nobody else who is in that position—in terms of flexibility and hours of work. It is not just the 10 per cent., but that nobody else with whom the Government have negotiating influence is moving above the 10 per cent. From the Fire Brigades Union's point of view, the benchmark negotiations and those on the 42-hour week, in my view, are of the greatest importance and illustrate what I mean by flexibility.

Mr. Spriggs: Now will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rees: No. I shall do so in a moment. The point I want to make is that it has to be negotiated in the NJC. That is where the negotiations should take place, because that is the statutory machinery.

Mr. Spriggs: My right hon. Friend referred to the 10 per cent. in the future negotiations. I think that this is starting at the wrong end. I ask my right hon. Friend to give the members of the Fire


Service their proper status. They are highly qualified technicians. Every day of the year new toxic substances and poisonous gases are being produced which these men are called on to deal with, hourly, daily—at any part of the 24 hours. They are ready seven days a week and 52 weeks a year. If such men are prepared to give the nation this service, why not give them the proper status first? Why not give them the average skilled worker's rate of pay first and then let them negotiate the 10 per cent. on top of that?

Mr. Rees: I have explained to my hon. Friend that the purpose of the second part of the discussion is to get that right. The Government's policy is within the guidelines. Of course, in terms of what my hon. Friend has just been saying, there is a need to do something about firemen's pay. There is no doubt about that. That is what the benchmark is for, and that is what the reduction in hours to 42 is for. Something has been offered for discussion in the proper place, at the NJC.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: My right hon. Friend knows that I support him absolutely in his attitude on this point. But on the question of the reduction to 42 hours, although that is a social advance it does not put another penny into the pocket of the firemen. Another 5,000 men are to be recruited to make up for the hours the present firemen will not work. If there were the opportunity of overtime—a reduction to 42 hours plus overtime—I could understand that that would put money into the firemen's pockets. Has the Home Secretary considered that?

Mr. Rees: All I am saying in regard to the reduction in hours is that this has been a major part of the policy of the Fire Brigades Union for many years. It is important, and the social aspect is important, but it is a matter for negotiation.
For the record—I offer it at no more than that—what happens in the 48-hour week is that pay for the last eight hours is paid at time and a third that is, there is a premium rate in the 48 hours. I do not make anything of that except to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend.
The present situation is that the Government's guidelines and the discussions on the benchmark and the reduction in hours to 42 offer the flexibility that one has not been able to achieve before. This is the right way to move forward. The firemen cannot be considered in isolation, and, on behalf of the Government, I say to the House that that is the only way through to the benefit of us all, including the firemen. As I told the firemen in May, I want to help them in this respect, and I initiated discussions so that the local authorities could negotiate on the question of hours, as can be seen from what I told the conference in May.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw: By obtaining this emergency debate, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has provided the House with a valuable opportunity to discuss these matters, and he made a notable contribution to the debate himself. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to use this opportunity to inform the Home Secretary of their constituents' problems and anxieties in a potentially dangerous situation. I, therefore, intend to intervene only briefly.
As the nation faces its first firemen's strike, it is important that I should make the position of the Opposition absolutely clear. First, we expect the Government to ensure that the local authorities continue in the NJC to seek a negotiated settlement. I agree with the Secretary of State in that regard. Secondly, we shall certainly not give any encouragement to the firemen to believe that they can gain a remedy for their grievances on pay, however strongly felt, through strike action.
We shall support the Government in taking any measures which are necessary for the protection of the public during this emergency situation. That, we believe, is the duty of a responsible Opposition in the interests of the whole nation. As such, it contrasts strongly with the behaviour of the Labour Opposition in 1974. The present Prime Minister, in a speech at Aberdare, using words in complete contrast to what he says today, did his best at that time to undermine the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who equally was fighting the battle against inflation, and, of course,


many of those who are now senior Ministers—including, naturally, the Leader of the House—behaved likewise. Since then, as a Government they have reaped the whirlwind of their own irresponsibility at that time, and the nation has suffered as a result.
However, we now have to deal with the present situation and look to the future. There must be those in this House who, like me, look back now over more than 20 years and remember all the different methods used in efforts to curb wage inflation, some statutory, some otherwise. Unfortunately, under successive Governments the results of these efforts have left those in the public service who are responsible for the maintenance of our society and the safety of our citizens—such as the Armed Forces, the police and the firemen—with their position lower in relation to average earnings. We must remember, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire made clear, that these groups face special dangers and special responsibilities in their work. I believe that we, in this House, wherever we sit, will fail in our duty to our people if we allow this process to continue.
Frankly, I must tell the Home Secretary that the Government's shifting position on the 10 per cent. guidelines—an upper limit at one moment, an average at another—cannot hope to provide a basis for fair and sensible negotiations. I hope, therefore, that, as we are now embarked on what the Government describe as an orderly return to free collective bargaining, we shall all consider what different arrangements should be made for determining the pay and conditions of such groups in the future. Indeed, it will be the height of absurdity if the taxpayer supports overmanning in one part of our economy, such as the British Steel Corporation and fails to provide the money necessary to prevent undermanning in another vital and dangerous sector of our community.
I want to put some brief questions to the Home Secretary about the arrangements to deal with the present situation. I am sure we would all wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) and many of my hon. Friends who have signed an Early-Day Motion congratulating the Armed Forces of the Crown on their efforts to cope with fire emergencies.
We are also entitled to ask, as they do, why the troops have to do this with outdated equipment. Will the Home Secretary tell us why the local authorities have not been required to make available their essential standard fire-fighting appliances? If the answer is that some of the appliances are so complicated that they could be used only after further intensive training, does that apply to all the equipment? For example, does it apply to the ladders necessary to reach high-rise flats? In that connection, what special measures do the Government intend to take to protect those who live in tower blocks and whose lives are particularly at risk?
The Home Secretary will also be aware that problems arise where various fire authorities have closed-shop agreements with the Fire Brigades Union. Some firemen may feel that they are in conscience bound to go to fires where there are particular dangers to life. I am sure that we would all applaud the actions of those firemen on official picket duty at Popular fire station who went to help fight a fire which threatened patients in St. Andrew's Hospital, Devons Row, Bow, last night.
There are, too, those firemen who have consciencious objections to going on strike when the safety of the public is at stake and wish to remain at work. I am certain that the public would consider it utterly deplorable if such men were to be victimised at the end of the strike. What action, therefore, is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that where closed-shop agreements are in force there will be safeguards against losing their jobs for those men who feel obliged to work in certain circumstances?
At the start of my speech I made the Conservative Party's position clear. The Government can rely on our constructive approach as long as the strike lasts. All the more are we entitled to answers from the Home Secretary on crucial questions affecting our constituents. The Government's policies must be seen by the House and the country adequately to meet the dangerous situation that all our fellow citizens now face.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: One question not dealt with by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) was why the Opposition thought and argued that


the police were a special case, but not the firemen.

Mr. Whitelaw: I made it abundantly clear throughout all the discussions about the police that in no circumstances would the Opposition consider even talk of a police strike. That is the position, and that is where we stand on the firemen's strike, too.

Mr. Heffer: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman dodges the question. What have we had from him? A partisan political speech with no thought of trying to deal with the really important questions. As usual, the Conservative Party uses every occasion such as this to make a party political point when what we should be dealing with are the specific issues and the actual claim made by the firemen. That is the point dodged by the right hon. Gentleman.
No one has suggested that the Conservative Party said that the police should go on strike for their special case, but Opposition Members argued strongly in the House that the police were a special case and that their claim ought to be met. Therefore, if the police are a special case it is perfectly right to point out the special circumstances of the firemen, and to say that they are equally a special case and deserve special treatment.
I was disappointed with the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I thought that we would get a better speech than that from him. I do not want to say anything that will exacerbate the situation, but I think that he was only half correct in outlining precisely what has happened in relation to the firemen.
May I draw the attention of hon. Members to the document headed "Assessing His Value" which, as they came into the House today, hon. Members had handed to them by firemen at the gates of the House. At the beginning of the document there is a statement by the General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, Terry Parry. The point that he makes is that
The National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades was moving close to this in 1975 through a working party dealing with the wider involvement of firemen in Fire Prevention duties. Their report came within a

hair's breadth of being endorsed by the National Joint Council, but pay policy intervened and it remained an un-endorsed interim report.
Once again, the pay policy intervenes and a group of workers has been left behind because of their special circumstances, because they have not used their muscle, and they have more muscle than many other workers. They have been left behind because they have a social conscience.
The House has a duty and a responsibility to help such sections of workers precisely because we do not want them to go on strike, more so than any other section of workers. If the Ford workers go on strike a number of cars are not produced. But we trade on the social conscience of the police and of the firemen, and it is not right. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Army?"] We are not talking about the Army; we are talking about sections of workpeople.
It is right that we should have this debate today. I have heard people say that we should not have a debate because it may exacerbate the situation. If people thought that the House was not prepared to debate an issue of this kind in this sort of crisis, that would be a reason for people to turn away from it. That is what the House of Commons is all about. If we can spend days and hours on such nonsense as devolution, we can certainly spend a little time in discussing real problems, the problems of the firemen.
I want to draw attention to the McCarthy Report, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred. Lord McCarthy was the chairman of a working group—

Mr. Skinner: A moderate, as well.

Mr. Heffer: I should have thought that the firemen were being moderate. I think everybody in this case is moderate.
Lord McCarthy says that
After careful consideration, and much discussion, we are jointly agreed that there are no precise analogues to be found in respect of the qualified fireman's job. Some aspects of his job are similar to particular features of other jobs; but there are invariably substantial and important differences. This makes it unreasonable to conclude that his level of remuneration should be tied to the level of a remuneration in a narrow range of specified occupations.


That is what the Home Secretary did not quote. He quoted the next part, which says:
It follows from this"—
remembering the previous paragraph—
that the most appropriate comparison to make is with the generality of jobs in the community.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: All I was concerned about was that Lord McCarthy did not come up with a precise result. I am saying that it must be discussed in the negotiating machinery.

Mr. Heffer: Of course Lord McCarthy did not come up with a specific proposal in that sense, but it was on the basis of the statement from the working group that the Fire Brigades Union—in my opinion perfectly justifiably—put forward its specific claim. That is what it was based on. The union was perfectly right to do so.
Let us now look at the firemen's position. Their hours of work amount to 48—no overtime, no rent allowances, no extra payment for shifts or weekend work. The firemen's daily stint is nine hours work in a day, and 15 hours if they are on night work. On the basis of four grades, their gross pay, when they start, is £52·53. After six months, and up to two years, it is £54·88. In the third year, it is £57·48. In the fourth year, it is £60·32. When qualified, they receive £65·59.
Out of that gross pay comes income tax, stamps and all the other payments that workers have to make. A fireman in the fourth year, with two children will actually take home £46.71. That is an absolute disgrace. We are asking people to risk their lives. Incidentally, in his speech my right hon. Friend said, as have many other people:
I am pleased to pay tribute here today … to the heroic way in which you respond to the calls which are made upon you, and to the essential role which you perform in our community.
Always heroes—until it comes to the question of giving them a decent wage for the work that they do. The time has come when the House has to say quite clearly that these workpeople have a just case.
I do not know how many trade union negotiations my right hon. Friend has

been involved in, but he said that it is a 31 per cent. claim. Of course it is a 31 per cent. Claim—just as the coalminer's claim is a large one, and just as all the claims with which I was involved in my industry were as high as we could get. A claim and settlement are two totally different things. Anybody who knows anything about trade union negotiations knows that that is the exact position. Of course a claim is put in. In any case, what are the firemen asking for?
They are asking for the national average wage plus 10 per cent., which is, in fact, within the norm that my right hon. Friend talked about.
Let us return to the question of 10 per cent. It is like a virility symbol. We must keep to the 10 per cent. Of course, if it is Ford, we can go up to 12 per cent. If it is a nationalised industry, talks must be held through the nationalised machine, and it must be below 10 per cent. We all know what is going on. But what is going on at the moment is a firemen's strike that is totally unnecessary.
I conclude by telling my right hon. Friend that he must not think that the general public will say, as the Tory Front Bench wanted to say, "Fine. Stand firm against this bunch of ruthless workers, these terrible people. Stand firm." That is not what the general public are saying. [Interruption.] That is what the right hon. Gentleman meant. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right, if that is not what the right hon. Gentleman meant, he should say so.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman seeks to put words into my mouth. Let me be perfectly clear what I said. I simply made clear that the Opposition would not encourage the firemen to believe that they could gain a settlement of their grievances, however strongly those grievances were felt, by means of strike action. That is miles away from what the hon. Gentleman now attributes to me. He must be fair. Normally, he is fair. He had better start by being fair to me now.

Mr. Heffer: I obviously always want to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman. If he did not actually mean that, I think that we shall all accept what he says. I did not say that he said it. I said that that is what he means. If he does not mean that, and means something else,


that is all right. But whatever his attitude, if my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench think that the general public will turn against the firemen, they are wrong. One has only to listen to any local radio broadcast to hear people, some of whom have already been involved in a fire, saying that they think that the firemen have a just case. They know the firemen. When one has a fire in one's house, it is the decent, friendly lad from the nearest fire station who comes to put out the fire, and he does everything possible to help. We have all seen the fireman in action.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: He makes the householders a cup of tea.

Mr. Heffer: Exactly; he makes a cup of tea if an old lady is involved. I have seen firemen do it. It is marvellous how they deal with the situation.
It is about time that we put aside the decision that we have taken to stand firm against sections of workers such as these. I appeal to my right hon. Friend, when he talks about flexibility, not to talk only about flexibility of hours. Incidentally, my right hon. Friend did not actually say that at the conference. He was talking about flexibility in relation to pay settlements. That is what he was talking about, and not just about hours. I ask my right hon. Friend to be flexible and not to make hard and fast statements. He should get back round the table, and get the lads back to work.
I conclude by saying this about the firemen: if one reads their resolution—I hope that people have read it—they ask for either a settlement or a recalled conference, which means that at such a conference they will consider proposals put to them. Let us put some proposals to the firemen at the earliest possible moment, get a resumption of work, and make certain that people's lives and property are safeguarded, because none of the firemen wants to do anything other than look after the interests of the people.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on bringing this short debate before the House. I believe that it is right for the House to debate this matter, because it is a matter

not touched by the CBI or the TUC. It is a matter essentially for Parliament. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), that it is right and proper that Parliament should support the Government in the discharge of their authority. Against that, I must say that my support is not unlimited on this issue.
The fact is that the authority of the Government does not depend merely on votes in the House of Commons. The authority of the Government depends on the willingness of those who have to enforce public safety, of those who have to enforce the defence of this country. That is a factor in determining whether the Government have such full support. It is an alarming situation today, where there is disgruntlement in the Armed Forces and where there is disaffection in the police forces to the point at which a police strike was threatened, and now we see those responsible for the protection of public safety actually on strike. That should cause the House, especially the Government, furiously to ask why we should have got into such a position today.
In my view, it is not a question of flexibilities. Flexibilities can be used in such a devious way, either by the massive use of the pistonage and muscle power of trade unions or the activities of people such as the CBI, or by the actions of persons, as the hon. Gentleman said, who may be self-employed. But Parliament has to make it not a question of a measure of flexibility but a question of a special category for those who are engaged in the protection of the realm and public safety. That, I believe, is what Parliament should be about.
We have seen what happened in the past in relation to areas of flexibility. This Minister or that, of either Government, will make an arrangement, staying within some mysterious range of flexibility, and immediately set off a response throughout various sectors of organised labour. The House has to recognise that there must be certain groups which protect the community and which need special treatment but which will always be last in the queue.
I am not in favour of anyone winning by a strike against the public interest,


but the public interest essentially lies in the protection of those persons who do not have the CBI or the TUC to talk for them and whom Parliament must defend. That is what Parliament is about.
We live in a mercenary age. We are all mercenary in various ways, but some are more mercenary than others. [Interruption.] I speak for myself. We live in a mercenary age, and there are some who are more mercenary than others. But those who are engaged in the public service, whether in the police, in the fire service or in the Armed Services, are mercenary in the sense that they are paid—and pay is a vital matter to them. But they are there for better reasons than mere mercenary attraction.
May I recall to the House the lines written by Housman about a mercenary army? He said that when all else was crashing and trembling, they, the mercenaries, maintained
And saved the sum of things for pay.
This is a question of pay. It is also a question of maintaining the sum of things—the authority of the State and the proper defence of public safety, whether at home or abroad. That is why I hope that when the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister reach a decision they will look more carefully at the so-called guidelines and recognise that there is a special category of people who must be treated differently from those whose attitude is merely that of grab, of organised materialism and the seizure of what they can. I hope, therefore, that it will be on these terms, when it comes to a settlement, that the Government and the Opposition will consider a proper redefinition of those who serve the country well.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: There can be no special categories today. The whole House knows that. I agree with the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) that, in the longer term, we should consider further the problem of people in the public service upon whom our safety depends.
The plain truth is that if the Government give way to the firemen the Government are doomed. Every Member knows that. We are paying today, and all these anomalies are arising, because we have gone in and out of incomes policy. Listen-

ing to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), one would not think that it was the Conservatives who abolished the Prices and Incomes Board when they took office in 1970. The Labour Government abolished the Relativities Board which could have been of much use at present in the public service in analysing and getting a proper relativities scale.
If one goes in and out of incomes policies, one pays the price. All kinds of anomalies are created. Many categories of people today can establish a first-class case for being treated as special categories. But no section can at present be treated as a special category. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone referred to discontent among the Armed Forces, the police and the firemen. The basis of this discontent is, in every instance, inflation.
It is important for this country to conquer inflation. If we give way now to special groups, inflation will continue. We all know that if one special category is acknowledged outside the guidelines, another will claim tomorrow even more special status.

Mr. Spriggs: The hon. and learned Gentleman charges the Fire Brigades Union with putting itself in a special category. I have not seen it trying to make a special case of its claim. Over the past three years or four years it has been trying to obtain a reassessment of its members' job value. It has never had that reassessment. If the job value of its members had been reassessed correctly, it would not have argued about 10 per cent., it would have gone ahead, like the rest of us.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman should be honest with himself. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the Government guideline of 10 per cent. should not be observed in respect of the firemen. What is that but arguing a special case?

Mr. Spriggs: No.

Mr. Hooson: We have a chance to emerge from a period of high inflation to a period of relative prosperity. The whole process will be jeopardised and probably wrecked if the Government do not stay firm.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Reading.

Mr. Hooson: I sometimes wish that the hon. Gentleman would read. If he did, he would make more sense.
The Government dare not give way in the public sector, which is the only sector they control. I am convinced that the public want the Government, whatever their colour, to stand firm and get us out of the inflationary spiral. That is the dominant requirement of our age.
I found little with which to disagree in the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) when he referred to the tremendous service that is given by firemen. I think that they are held in high esteem. When we consider the great efficiency with which fires have been tackled and the great bravery displayed by firemen, we all appreciate that they are in a special public category. In the longer term, I agree with the view that we need to demonstrate some special recognition of this fact. The reality is that we cannot do that today. The firemen are deceiving themselves if they think that they can bring the Government to abandon their guidelines. If the Government do that, they cannot survive.

Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that if the Government are more flexible in their approach in order to get a settlement the Liberal Party will withdraw its support from the Government?

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, being hypocritical. He knows that he is suggesting that the Government should abandon their guidelines. He is saying that they should recognise the firemen as a special case financially. If that happens, the police will have to be recognised as a special case, and then there will be the miners. That is a means of destroying the Government's policy, and the hon. Gentleman knows that.

Mr. Skinner: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Hooson: I must tell the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Peter Hordern: I repeat what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). It raises a matter of considerable importance. If the Government negotiate with the fire-

men or any other body in any other sector and the result of the negotiations is a settlement that goes beyond 10 per cent.—in the private sector, for example—is he saying that the Liberal Party will then and there withdraw its support from the Government?

Mr. Hooson: I am saying that if the Government negotiate an agreement that effectively destroys their battle against inflation the arrangements with the Liberals will be at an end. My right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) has always said so, and everyone in the House knows that the purpose of the arrangement with the Government is to give the country a period of stability to enable it to get out of the situation that has been partly created by the Government's own mistakes.
Mention has been made of 1974. When the Government came to power they governed very badly. Straightaway they abolished such things as the Relativities Board and the basic set-up for a prices and incomes policy. They said that they would have free collective bargaining and a free-for-all. We see where that led the country. It was exactly the same when the Conservatives came to power in 1970. They dismantled all the incomes machinery that had been set up by the previous Labour Government. The result was that in two or three years we were in a highly inflationary situation. Those who have suffered in the long run have been groups such as the firemen. The firemen and the police, for example, have been the victims because they have not used their muscle power.
Today we are facing the realities. I heartily commend the line taken today by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It cannot give him any pleasure to take a firm line on the firmen's claim. I am sure that he recognises that they have many special features. However, he can take no other course than that which he has taken today.
The firemen have gone on strike for the first time in their history. I am sure that it gives them no pleasure to be on strike. I now suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should think of a formula that brings them back to the negotiating table—[Interruption.] The trouble with right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches is that they will never listen.


I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that a reduction in working hours "cannot be taken to the butchers", as it were. What is necessary is an acknowledgement, not that the Government will allow the firemen to make a claim outside their guidelines, but that when the present guidelines have come to an end the Government will appreciate that the firemen have, to a degree, in the past been led up the garden path. As the old saying goes,
Hope deferred maketh the heart sink.
There have been four reviews in the past decade, two of them in the past year. They have all been caught by pay policies. The firemen are looking for an acknowledgment from the Government that they appreciate their position.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)—

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it normal to call two Government supporters one after the other? I have raised this matter on several previous occasions. One Government supporter has been called immediately after the other and no Opposition Member has been interspersed between them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has been a distinguished Member of the House for long enough to know that the order in which Members catch the eye of the Chair is at the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Kinnock: I suppose that we must get used to the idea that the winter quarters of Chipperfield's Circus are in Cirencester and Tewkesbury.
On incomes policy it is unfortunate that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, like the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), employs all the bravado of a gnat about to rape an elephant. I refer to their stimulation of the Government's courage and their strident insistence on the inflexible maintenance of whatever norm has been set. They adopt that approach in the easy knowledge that there is little responsibility for meeting the obligation that will arise from sticking to the norm.
I am not accusing the hon. and learned Gentleman or his party of avoiding responsibility. The fact is that just as the Government can sensibly take not inflexible attitude, neither can the Liberal Party. That applies to any men of good conscience and common sense who seek to represent the people.
The matter that we debate is grim and the times are grim, but a certain lightness is lent to every occasion of its kind by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), especially when, again, he says that Conservative Party policy is one of holding the Government's coats. The Conservative Party earnestly supports the Government's income policy and it will hold their coats. It will second them in their corner and then proceed as firmly as it can to hack the hamstrings and kick the backside of the Government at every opportunity that presents itself.
The right hon. Gentleman talked of the need to free firemen's equipment so that people other than firemen can use turntable ladders and breathing apparatus. He spoke, although there is not a single instance of it happening, nor will there be, about the victimisation of fulltime or part-time firemen because of their conviction, for whatever reason, that they should go to work. I repeat that there has not been a single instance of this happening and there will not be, yet the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border rehearsed arguments over the closed shop. How inappropriate, sick, disingenuous, opportunistic, ludicrous and insupportable politically it is to introduce such matters in this debate. I believe that we should bring more reason to bear on this subject than the right hon. Gentleman sought to do this afternoon.
Firemen are well known to me. For the last 12 years I have, twice a week, and sometimes more frequently, attended their schools all over the country, including their national and executive schools. I suspect that the people who attended their conference last week have been part of my classes. They are in many respects close friends and comrades of mine. Many of them are people with the most progressive and radical political attitudes, and they work for political and radical ends. They never thought that they would be on


strike, nor did I—nor, Indeed, did the country. For people with such a profound social conscience to come out on strike must mean that they were provoked to do so arising from a longstanding cause.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows this because he has known the firemen and their situation over a long period. He knows that even if there is no settlement, eventually the firemen will go back to work. But there is no interest at all in the Government's winning a slow and sullen victory over the firemen. That should not be contemplated by anybody. They will go back because of their consciences. They will not be starved out, but they will return to work because they cannot contemplate what is happening in the country. That is what makes most of them firemen. They are not in it for the money, otherwise they would not have stayed in the Fire Service in the last 10 or 12 years.
What are the circumstances behind the present situation? I have a letter which should have been circulated to all hon Members, but unfortunately because of the postal arrangements this was not possible. I should like to make extensive references to that letter, because it comes from the pens of the very people who are affected in our considerations today.
The letter makes it clear that the firemen are on strike because of their low wages for the job they do, and because of the additional factor that over the last 18 years they have achieved a number of pay settlements and recommendations, only to have them taken away at the eleventh hour, or in some cases even later, because of the incomes policies practised by successive Governments. They are uniquely unfortunate in that situation, and that is why we must give them unique consideration. That is why they have said "This is the last time this will happen."
In 1961 a pay settlement was achieved in the National Joint Council, but before the next item on the agenda was reached a message was received from the then Home Secretary, Rab Butler, stopping that settlement. Following that, Selwyn Lloyd, as he then was, as Chancellor of

the Exchequer, put his "guiding light" policy into operation, and a settlement, after lengthy demonstrations by the union, was deferred for six months. At the June 1966 meeting of the NJC the negotiators agreed an 8½ per cent. pay increase for the Fire Service. The day before that was to be ratified by the NJC, the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, sent for both sides of the NJC and told them that the claim could not be settled. The matter was then referred to Aubrey Jones and the National Board for Prices and Incomes. That happened to be the day when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the then Prime Minister, announced the six-month pay freeze. The then Home Secretary had double bad news for the firemen.
In 1970 the NJC negotiated a reasonable pay rise. On the day before it should have been ratified, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), summoned the employers' side of the NJC and said that that arrangement should not be proceeded with. That was at a time when we had no incomes policy.
All these incidents have brought about industrial unrest in the Fire Service. In 1969 the London Fire Brigade was within hours of going on strike. The strike was called off amid scenes of violence. The General Secretary of the FBU, Mr. Parry, is here in the House, and he knows all these things. In 1973 the Glasgow Fire Brigade went on strike for 11 days. Arising from the 1970 block on agreed pay settlements, an inquiry into Fire Service pay and conditions was set up under the Cunningham Committee. Eventually a report from that committee fixed firemen's pay in 1971 at £35·58 weekly—£2·58 above average male earnings at that time. In 1977, a fireman's pay of £65·70 a week is £12·90 behind average male earnings, a deterioration, in money terms, of £15·48. That is an intolerable position considering the kind of work that firemen carry out, as I am sure every hon. Member, including the Home Secretary, will agree.
In 1964, and up to April 1975, a National Joint Council working party was in being, whose terms of reference were to evaluate a wider involvement in fire prevention duties. By April 1975 an interim report was drawn up and an evaluation


made with regard to extra pay for new duties.
As a result of "Attack on inflation" and the present pay policy, stage 1, the report of the working party was shelved. It resulted in the Fire Service answering only emergency calls in the period from April to August 1975. In stage 2 the NJC supported the TUC and the Government. In 1977 the NJC working party was reconstituted, and we have all been circulated with details of the outcome.
An attempt was then made by a joint working group headed by Lord McCarthy, which produced a comparison of job descriptions. After many meetings, the working party jointly decided that there was no precisely analogous occupation to be found in respect of a qualified fireman's job, and that the most appropriate comparison to make was with the generality of jobs in the community.
Since 25th October this year the NJC has been considering a pay formula for firemen, and is still considering it. There is to be a further meeting between employers' and union representatives on this issue tomorrow, Wednesday 16th November.
It is for these reasons and no other that there is a feeling that a debate in this House is inappropriate, since the House of Commons is not a fit forum to discuss and expose these issues. Therefore, it is to be hoped that tomorrow's meeting will not induce additional inflexibility into the Government's attitude or additional embarrassment to the negotiators, and it is to be hoped that a settlement will not be circumscribed. This arrangement certainly has nothing to do with any attempt at secret industrial diplomacy. It has everything to do with the fact that tomorrow's meeting should not be impeded or embarrassed by anything that may be said in this House. Fortunately, until now that difficulty has been avoided owing to the sensitivity of everybody who has spoken in the debate so far. I hope that the debate will continue in that vein. It will be assisted if the House is not divided on this matter, but that is up to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars).

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Because of the possibility of a vote, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what will be the position of

the NJC at tomorrow's meeting if the Government decide to give 10 per cent. now and agree to accept whatever conclusion is reached in the NJC, with both sides being involved, but reserving the question of phasing until later?

Mr. Kinnock: I cannot speak for the FBU. I am not its official representative, and I do not pretend that I could be. I am not a Government spokesman, but my opinion is that there can be no question of holding totally firmly to the 10 per cent. line. There must be more than the 10 per cent. limit would permit. How much more is a matter for negotiation.
The Government have said that the situation would be dealt with "in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time." The firemen have demonstrated how serious and impatient they are and that they want to go back to work. The figure, the conditions of work and additional considerations are all negotiable. Just as the Government have made 10 per cent. a fertility symbol, so have those with whom they are negotiating. That always happens when a norm or limit is imposed. There is enough good will and conscience on both sides to avoid difficulties arising out of making the 10 per cent. a token.
The claim is for 31 per cent. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said that everybody asked for more than they expected to receive. For the firemen the 31 per cent. is a means of lifting them above the average manual wage. They want that guaranteed in perpetuity, and such a formula must be agreed somehow. It is not necessary for it to be agreed immediately, or even before the men return to work, but the firemen must be confident that there is an absolute determination that that kind of procedure shall be embarked upon.
The firemen have enough trust in the Government and enough recognition of the difficulties that the Government have to a large extent imposed upon themselves for a settlement to be agreed. The firemen recognise that the Government have imposed inflexibility upon themselves but that they are prepared to escape from it.
There must be a compromise. We have the basis for a solution if NJC negotiations are conducted on those lines and so long


as free collective bargaining in that sense is permitted. The Government, the employers and the firemen want a return to normal working. It is not a question of face-saving. The nature of the firemen's work must be recognised. That recognition must be demonstrated, so that firemen feel that their conditions will be improved, and substantially improved, in the long term.
The Government's position was summed up earlier and communicated to the union. The communication stated that
The Government recognise the need to establish a formula for determining Fire Service pay. The Government welcome the fact that the National Joint Council is seeking through established negotiating procedures to achieve this. The Government are following closely discussion on this subject in the NJC, but the phasing of any further pay increase will have to be considered in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time.
We can anticipate the "prevailing circumstances". The Government have said what they expect them to be in the next 12 months. They talk about falling inflation. They have calculated what will happen by considering a mixture of national and international situations. Inflation is falling.
One of the circumstances that must prevail is the restoration of certain areas of public spending. That will not commend itself to the Opposition. If there is a restoration of public spending it will have the full endorsement of the Labour movement.
That could lead to another prevailing circumstance—the relaxation of strict pay limits. The opportunity that that would give employers in the public sector would mean that there would be no sell-out, no backing down and no loss of face. It would mean that the firemen could be among the first to settle a satisfactory wage level. That would mean that the firemen would no longer have to trail behind the average manual industrial worker and would remove the possibility of their repeating their present action.
Even if a formula can be agreed in the NJC the Government pay policy allows for only a 10 per cent. increase. That policy should not be torn up or thrown away, but it must reflect reality. Many suggestions have been made to the union and the Government about a pos-

sible formula. One of the more sensible ideas is that of a reconstruction of weekend working. The Government have paid attention to that idea. I am sure that there is a feasible product to be gained from that and that there will be profit from it.
All sorts of possibilities have been explored by the union and the Government, but no one has yet managed to agree to a settlement that comes within the guidelines. The guidelines must not represent a straitjacket. They must be negotiable, and it must be possible to go above them. That would not open the floodgates. The Government should remember that the dam holding back the water could be more dangerous than the flood itself.
I am not calling for a sell-out. The firemen do not want a sell-out. They recognise the necessity of a counter-inflation policy, even if they do not like incomes policies. They do not want to cause the Government damage, but they cannot go along with half promises or anything that is based upon a kiss and a promise. I am sure that the Government will not act in that way.
I believe that the firemen will receive something tenable from the Government. I hope that the NJC will be given the freedom to negotiate realistically, so that the men may return to work as quickly as possible on a different footing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that there are only 60 minutes of the debate left and that it is possible that the Home Secretary will wish to wind up. I appeal to hon. Members to make their speeches brief, since that would be in the interests of all.

5.28 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am grateful for being allowed to speak in this debate, and I promise to be brief. I feel obliged to speak because of the situation in my constituency. As has been reported in the local Press, a group of full-time firemen at Rhyl are standing ready to answer emergency calls despite the strike. They are crossing the picket line and have met with no resistance. As one might have expected from such a distinguished body of men, the pickets have behaved with complete propriety. Awards for gallantry have been awarded to two of the men on that picket line.
Those firemen who are breaking the strike have asked for my support. The attitude of the fire officers and the local fire prevention committee has been equivocal. Those who are continuing to work have not managed to extract an undertaking from their chiefs or employers that they will be protected or even helped should any victimisation occur when the strike is over. They have no guarantee that they will be able to keep their jobs. Therefore, they have asked me, as their Member of Parliament, for my support. I could not possibly withhold it. I have told them that I shall support them to the best of my ability and press the Home Secretary to make a statement of support for people in such a position.
Of course, the firemen feel frustrated. They have a justified claim, which has been put magnificently by a succession of speakers from the Labour Benches, particularly in an outstanding speech by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). I understand that they feel aggrieved because they were left behind in the scramble which took place in 1974–75 under the title of the social contract. It is no wonder they feel bitter. But whatever their bitterness, whatever the strength of their claim, can they be happy in their minds about the form of industrial action that their union has taken?
I know that Socialist Ministers abhor the idea of strike-breaking or giving any encouragement to strike-breakers. But they must recognise an overriding obligation to protect people from fire, from being trapped in debris or in crashed cars. Whatever their Socialist principles, have they the right to reject any means of saving life? I appeal to the Home Secretary. I know that for anybody on the Labour Benches the word "blackleg" is highly emotive, but what sort of blackleg is it who risks his own job in order to save life?

Mr. John Mendelson: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to help?

Sir A. Meyer: When the Home Secretary is appealing to the leaders of the strike to call it off—[Interruption.] The sedentary interruptions from the Labour Benches are a clear illustration that for some Labour Members Socialism comes first and humanity second. I do not believe that that is the Home Secretary's

attitude or that of many Labour Members.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does the hon. Gentleman want to help or to exacerbate the situation?

Sir A. Meyer: I am being very careful in my choice of words. I have already said that I believe that the firemen have a strong claim.
I shall not join those who are urging the Government to break their pay policy to meet the firemen's claim, but I still believe that if they had not gone on strike the argument for a compromise would have been overwhelming, and that by going on strike they have weakened their argument. I appeal to the Home Secretary to give some encouragement, some indication of support, to those whose consciences will not allow them to stand by when human lives are in danger.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I shall be as brief as possible. I have no doubt that that will be welcomed by Opposition Members and perhaps by some on my side of the House.
I am not surprised by what is taking place here today. I fully expected that when the re-entry period of the incomes policy came there would be someone in the front row arguing about wages. It must happen, because incomes policies have been the bane of the Labour Government. The Tories have introduced them as well, but that is not my business. If they want to play around with incomes policies, that is a matter for them. But the Labour Government were elected, as I and all Labour Members were, on the basis of no interference with free collective bargaining.
I have been waiting for this day, waiting for Parliament to get down to the bare bones of the argument about what we do about incomes policies, about how we dispose of them, because they are alien to the whole idea of the trade union and labour movement. We fought the election on free collective bargaining. I well remember even Roy Jenkins, that super-Social Democrat, saying on television that there should be no interference in free collective bargaining unless we were at war. A succession of Labour Shadow Ministers went on television at


that time and said the same. Little Harold was there and said his piece—that there could be no interference.
There were people like myself who throughout that period, in 1975 and 1976, voted diligently against interference in free collective bargaining. I remember that there were about 17 of us on one occasion. Then the number dropped, until finally on the 12-month rule last July it was down to two. Somebody walked through the Lobby and supported us, but then found out that he had made a mistake and walked through the other Lobby, cancelling that vote.
Therefore, I have waited for this day. There is no doubt in my mind that the sooner the Labour Government dispose of their rigid attitude on incomes policies and the sooner they can increase the purchasing power of the people, the sooner they will get rid of that human pile of misery known as the dole queue and be able to appeal to the electorate on the basis on which we appealed to it in 1974, and the better their chance of being re-elected.
The Government will not be re-elected on the basis of carrying out a policy of bashing the unions, of following a barmy opinion poll last Thursday morning which said that 88 per cent. of the public believed in bashing the unions and keeping down wages. They will be reelected on the basis of appealing to people such as the firemen, who have diligently supported the trade union and labour movement over the years, through thick and thin.
Therefore, although I have signed a motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) about a special case and special consideration for the firemen, let me make it abundantly clear that I am not speaking about special cases. My argument is that the 10 per cent. rule must be disposed of. It just so happens that on this occasion the firemen, like the miners in 1974 and in 1972, were the first in the firing line. I want a breach to be opened and others to march through where some of those such as the firemen are trying to march through now.
There have been eight incomes policies in the past 12 years, all based on the suggestion that we would help poorly-paid

workers. Every incomes policy is supposed to help the old, the weak and the infirm. We are told that it will help the agricultural workers and even the firemen—all those who do not have the strength to bargain collectively. But what has each incomes policy produced? Those who were at the bottom of the wages league when the policy was introduced are always at the bottom when it finishes. The pensioners and the rest get nothing out of it. There has never been an incomes policy able to transfer the amount of wages forgone by a certain section of the trade union movement to another section intended to benefit. It has never happened, and it never can. There is no device, no instrument, in this place or outside it that can transfer that sum of money from one section of society to another.
Therefore, I am glad to see the beginning of the end of this new round of incomes policies. I say to my hon. Friends that this debate is not about a one-off job. We are seeing the gradual dismantling of the latest effort at an incomes policy, which attacked only those who could be easily identified, like the 40,000 firemen. To slap an incomes policy on them is quite easy. They can all be collated easily in the computer. It is easy to slap an incomes policy on 250,000 miners, several thousand dustbin men and several thousand teachers. They can all be corralled inside it.
But what about those hundreds of thousands—even millions—who are not affected by an incomes policy? How many chartered accountants were affected by the £6 pay policy and its successor? How many lawyers were affected by the incomes policies either of the Ted Heath Government or of this one? None.
Every time we have an incomes policy, it is the same people, those in the public sector, who get caught and are hit the hardest. Therefore, it is to be expected that the end of an incomes policy is largely the result of an attack on the public sector. We all recall what the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) did to the postal workers. The Tory Government had a similar formula. It was called N-minus-one. The right hon. Gentleman thought that he could defeat the postal workers because they were not as well organised as some others. The whole idea of the incomes policy was to help weak


organisations, such as the postal workers, but, because they were easy to clobber, the right hon. Gentleman decided to clobber them. The Tory Government, and some Labour Members, went along with him. They were able to succeed for a time, but in the end they were defeated.
The weaker groups in our society are always indentified and attacked by an incomes policy. On this occasion the firemen are in the centre of the stage.
Television commentators have contracts which are renegotiated, not at 10 per cent., or even at the 18 per cent. that the Royal Family received, but at much higher rates. Such people are outside the incomes policy. The editors of newspapers are not subject to the incomes policy. They will pick up £50,000 or whatever it is as managing directors of various newspaper companies, but, day in, day out, they will be preaching that the policy must be adhered to through thick and thin. I do not believe in such people.
I have learned something in the last seven years which I used to think was a fantasy when I worked in the coalfields. I used to think that the stories that I heard from public platforms about people evading incomes policies were not true. The seven years that I have spent in this place observing the people who frequent this place has taught me that it is not just a few people who are getting away from the rigidities of the incomes policy, but hundreds of thousands or even millions. That is why—and I am desperately sorry for the firemen—the debate had to take place. But it is about 12 months too late. As a result of calls for cuts in public expenditure by the Oppostition, the social wage was slashed at a stroke, and the contract was broken from then on.
This is the latest of the watersheds. Let us not torment ourselves with the idea that incomes policies can solve our problems in future. Even some of my hon. Friends in the Tribune Group stick to the old idea that we can devise an instrument to make them fair for one and all. It cannot happen, because so many people will be able to evade the rigidities of the incomes policy.
I suggest to those of my right hon. Friends who want to listen that they should not get any ideas that the firemen do not have public support. Never mind last Thursday's opinion poll. Many

opinion polls have been organised and orchestrated about many matters, including elections. We had opinion polls in 1970 prior to the downfall of the then Labour Government. Let us not get carried away by opinion polls. Let us not get carried away by euphoria in the City. The City does not vote for or put back a Labour Government.
The firemen have a lot of public support. I was on the picket lines last night and again this morning. Hordes of people travelling past fire stations in their cars have waved to the firemen. I have been involved in quite a few strikes and been on many picket lines in my time, but I have never seen so many people in cars putting their hands up and waving to the firemen as I witnessed both last night and this morning.
We should not misread the signs. It is time that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took less notice of the Liberal Party and more notice of those who throughout the years have supported the labour movement and Labour Members to this place. That is the area to which he should lend his ears, not to the Liberal Party.
The Liberals talk about pulling out from underneath, deserting, and saying that if the 10 per cent. limit is broken they will withdraw their support. I know what they will do. I read what is happening in the country. I know how many Liberal Members will be returned at the next election—and it does not matter when it comes. There will be many fewer than there are at present. Therefore, this lot will not bother about pulling the rug out. They will stick as long as they can. They will find some phrase, some form of words, to cover up the cracks when the 10 per cent. limit is breached. They will whisper to my right hon. Friend "Yes, we will settle for that form of words. That will be all right. Just put in an extra semicolon. It will be all right. It is enough for us."
I urge my right hon. Friend not to worry about the Liberal Party, but to listen to the heart-beat of the Labour movement, which on this occasion is represented by the firemen. Those are the people to whom we should listen. The Treasury Bench must listen to them from now on. They must start the renegotiation. Let us see the strike called off, and to


hell with the 10 per cent. rule and any form of incomes policy in future.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I find it difficult to speak after the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), as he goes off in his armourplated car to breach the Home Office bastions. However, he made some valuable and useful points.
It should be said at once that too many people in this Hounse and throughout the country have taken the fire brigade services for granted for far too long.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) referred to the uniformed services and how we have regarded them over the years. We have taken them for granted. We have assumed that when we pick up the telephone and dial 999, within two, three or four minutes the comforting and reassuring figures of firemen will appear whether to extricate a child's head from railings, to go into a burning house, or to deal with an extensive and dangerous industrial blaze. In the same way, we have assumed that when there is trouble the police will arrive and provide the necessary reassurance.
Because the firemen have not been vociferous in putting their views and explaining their conditions, and because they have not had a long history of strikes and industrial disputes, we have assumed that society has remunerated them and looked after them properly in the scheme of things.
It is only now, when we see what to many is the unprecedented and horrifying spectable of these men having to go on strike and man the picket lines, that we consider their situation and ask: why did we allow this situation to go on for so long?
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), in his very moving speech, put forward many of the basic reasons and gave us much valuable history for this strike taking place.
I met some of the office bearers of the Scottish executive of the Fire Brigades Union last Friday in Glasgow. I found them to be men of responsible character in the highest degree. They desperately wanted any alternative to the action that

seemed inevitable on Monday. When they explained the pay and conditions under which they operated, it seemed a sorry record and a poor reflection on our society, irrespective of which Government were in power, that this situation had been allowed to continue for so long.
Whatever the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) may say, there is quite definitely an unfairness to people working in the public sector as opposed to the private sector.

Mr. Hooson: rose—

Mr. Henderson: If I may continue for a moment, I shall allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to intervene.
All of us who are in close touch with industrial affairs in our own constituencies know very well that there are myriads of ways in which extra earnings opportunities can be found within the private sector. Everyone knows that things like overtime, incentive schemes, shift allowances, perks and other examples apply in the private sector from the shop floor to the boardroom. The opportunities are being taken now, during phase 3.
But where in the public sector are the opportunities for overtime, shift allowances, or productivity schemes? Those are the sorts of unfairness that come home to people in the public sector because they live next door to people who work in the private sector. These people are not marooned on a desert island. They know what goes on elsewhere.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman fairly makes the point that there is unfairness in the present system. Has he considered the unfairness in free collective bargaining? Why did that not succeed in 1973, 1974 or 1975, or from 1970 to 1972? That ended up as a desperate unfairness.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but there are several views about the various successes of the prices and incomes policies that we have tried over a number of years.
What worries me most about the view that the Government are taking—I have not yet heard enough from the Home Secretary to convince me that the Government should be supported and sustained on this issue—is the sense of rigidity that has crept into their attitude.


It seems to be hardening. We seem to be back in the days of three or four years ago, but instead of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) saying it, it is now the Home Secretary who stands at the Dispatch Box and says it.
I believe that the Home Secretary is in a somewhat ambiguous position, because during the course of his remarks he said that this was a matter for the National Joint Council. The right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility in this regard, because he is surely the ultimate paymaster. Surely it is possible for him to say something before the debate ends tonight. Surely he can send out a word to the employers' side of the National Joint Council saying, in effect, "For Heaven's sake, when you have this meeting tomorrow, take into account all these factors, which can be negotiated. Take into account the productivity increase that you are already getting from firemen, because while their hours remain at 48 you do not have to employ additional staff. Take into account the fact that there is no special payment for Saturdays and Sundays. Hammer out some kind of deal and let me bring it back to the House of Commons."
I assure the Home Secretary that if he does that he will have the gratitude of all of us in the House, and he will have the gratitude of the country as well.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I agree with what was said just now about the National Joint Council. It is a little naive of the Home Secretary to say that he was not represented in these negotiations, because, after all, it is he who is the ultimate paymaster and it is his Government who control the rate support grant and all the influence that flows from it.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in several speeches, notably that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointing out the factors that are special to the firemen. The hon. Gentleman particularly mentioned the fact that there was no overtime.
I also agree with the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), who pointed to the anguish of the firemen themselves in taking the action that they have taken. That was my personal experience yesterday, when

I met the fire brigade in my own constituency. However, I believe that the firemen have made a profound mistake in taking the action that they have done. I believe that the potential harm that it causes to the community greatly outweighs the strength of the firemen's own grievance, grave though it is. I believe that it will seriously prejudice their own position in the eyes of the public.
I therefore believe that the Government must do nothing to allow it to be seen that a strike of this nature succeeds. Having said that, I feel certain that if the strike could end now, the point would have been made and the firemen would be in a stronger position to secure a settlement which I believe would be fair.
Much has been said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire based upon his great knowledge of the firemen's job. I wish to say a few words about the others who are involved in this emergency, with no knowledge of the firemen's job. I am referring to the troops. A great deal has been said about the success with which they are carrying out their job. We have all read about it today, with great admiration. The senior fire officers who have observed it have been lavish in their praise. I quote one quick example. Last night a party of Grenadiers rushed into a blazing hospital near Charing Cross and put out a fire in circumstances in which, according to the senior officers who were present, regular firemen would have acted with much more caution.
The point that I want to make is that soldiers lack not only the experience of regular firemen but also the proper equipment. That seems neither unavoidable nor excusable.
I am not speaking about the sophisticated equipment referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw); I am speaking about the unsophisticated equipment—the basic equipment. I am speaking of turntables with ladders of more than 40 feet, of modern water tenders and, above all, of breathing equipment. All of this equipment is sitting in the fire stations and the Home Secretary has not allowed it to be used. That means that the troops have to do the best they can with 40-foot ladders. It means that they have to lug their hoses up flights of stairs in blocks of flats. It means that they are taking


more risk. The troops are having to use ancient water tenders on the "green goddesses", some of which leak as much at the back end as they pump out at the front. This means that the troops are exposed to greater risk.
The troops plunge into smoke-filled rooms without any breathing apparatus. We have seen pictures of this. Luckily, to date this has not been serious, but it could well be fatal.
I shall not trouble the Home Secretary to tell us tonight what view the Government would take of any other employer who deliberately exposed his men to such risk to their lives, assuming that any other body of men could be found to undertake those risks; I merely ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is just.
Every fire authority has in law a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of its firemen. Perhaps the Home Secretary will accept from me that if a fireman is sent to a fire without breathing apparatus when it is available, that duty is broken, because it is forseeable that he will, nevertheless, run risks to his own safety in order to save life.
If the fireman is seriously injured through his employer's negligence in this respect, he will receive from the courts substantial damages. If he dies, his widow will receive them. The figure might run to £25,000 or £30,000. But compare with this the position of the young soldiers who are taking the firemen's place at the request of the Government. They are already paid less than the firemen who are on strike. There will be no damages for them, or for their widows. If they are injured through lack of proper equipment they will get a Service pension, a lump sum, a terminal grant if they are 100 per cent. disabled, and a DHSS disability pension. But the fact is that the total, when capitalised, will be a relatively small fraction of the damages that a fireman would receive in a similar situation if he were injured by reason of the negligence of a fire authority in sending him into a fire without breathing equipment.
These young men joined the Army to be soldiers and they accept the hazards of that occupation If they are to be used as firemen, I believe that the Government owe them the same duty as that which

they owe firemen. That duty is to provide them with the equipment that is available to the extent that they are able to use it.
The Government cannot excuse themselves from that duty by saying that it will make matters politically difficult for them. I do not believe that the soldiers object to being used in aid of the civil power, so long as they are not exposed to wholly unnecessary risks. They do not expect that from their generals, and they do not get it, either. Why, then, should they get it from the Home Secretary?

6.0 p.m.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: There has been an absence from this debate of certain key words which we often hear from the Opposition. I have in mind words such as "incentives". No one has talked about the need for these workers to have any incentives. On the other hand, they have been lectured about their duty. The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) asked whether the firemen could be really happy in their own minds. There is a crassly stupid statement, if ever there was one. Are any of happy in our own minds with the present situation? But are we happy in our minds about the fact that firemen get £12 less per week than average male earnings?
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that there had to be some solution in the longer term. The trouble about that is that we depend on the services of our firemen in the short term. We depend on our firemen here and now. Fires and accidents will not wait for the longer term.
The hon. and learned Member also spoke of the high esteem in which he holds our firemen, and he spoke of their efficiency and bravery. But is it not a little insulting to tell people in these circumstances how much we admire their efficiency and bravery? They cannot eat the esteem in which they are held. They may appreciate it, but they will think that it makes poor food for their children.
I am very much afraid that too much of this lack of urgency—this feeling that the longer term will serve—characterised the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He said that there were three elements to the present situation—10 per cent. now, negotiations about


a formula, and a reduction in hours of work.
An increase of 10 per cent. now would still leave firemen about £6 behind average male earnings. It would not even bring them up to average male earnings, let alone provide any compensation for the dangers, the special skills, the unsocial hours and the rest of it. Yet this 10 per cent. apparently is utterly rigid.
My right hon. Friend said that he was not represented in the negotiations. But he does not need to be there in person. He has made it crystal clear that there can be no meaningful negotiations now because there can be no negotiations which go beyond the so-called guidelines. I thought that guidelines were meant to help negotiations on their way. I did not think that they were a euphemism for a straitjacket. Unfortunately, that is the way it seems.
My right hon. Friend then referred to hours of work. I am all for negotiating a reduction in the hours worked by our firemen. But is that to be used as a back-door method by which they then work overtime, so that they get an increase in wages in that way? I do not think that that will happen. I would not agree with it if it were to happen. So, there again, a reduction in hours of work, however desirable it may be, will not help firemen to pay their bills.
Then it is proposed to conduct negotiations about a formula. Here we have the feeling of "Next year, some time, maybe and according to the circumstances, let us look for a formula." There is a total absence,of the feeling of urgency which is necessary.
The firemen's claim is being distorted grossly. It is not a claim for 30 per cent. I went to Coventry this morning specifically to talk to local Fire Brigades Union officials. They bitterly resent the distortion of their claim. It is not a claim for 30 per cent. It is a claim based on a formula which they think would put them on a fair basis. The formula for 10 per cent. above average male earnings is a sensible one. My right hon. Friend must know—if he does not, someone should tell him—that it is designed to avoid these circumstances arising in the future. It is designed not only to solve the problem now but to prevent it arising again.
The firemen do not want to be in a position where they have to use their industrial strength. Speaking as one who normally approves of workers using their industrial strength, I may say that I do not want the firemen to be forced to use theirs. This dispute is one time when I do not know what I would want my husband to do if he were a fireman, and that is the first time that I could have said that about an industrial dispute. So I understand the men's anguish. The firemen have been driven to take this strike action knowing better than anyone the risks involved. They have been driven to it because they cannot make anyone understand the urgency of their case. No one listens.
Even when it comes to acknowledging the sort of job that they do and the bravery they show, the media cause our firemen a great deal of bitterness, and that has been expressed again in the Firefighter about the way that the Press dealt with the deaths of a number of firemen recently.
The firemen have been driven to take action which is unwelcome, and they do not want the situation to recur constantly. They want a self-adjusting formula which is fair. I do not know whether it will be average male earnings plus 10 per cent., although that sounds pretty sensible. But some self-adjusting formula like that is imperative—and not in the dim and distant future, hedged round with "ifs", "maybes" and "let us see what the situation is like".
It is necessary to talk on these lines now. I am afraid that the firemen will not go back to work on the basis of an offer which leaves them substantially behind average male earnings, unless they are driven to it by some disaster. Then they may crumble. Is that what we want? Do we want our firemen to be confronted with a disaster which causes a rout? Opposition Members want that, but do Government supporters want it?
The Fire Brigades Union contains people who are actively the backbone of this movement in every sense. Yet our Government, for the sake of a 10 per cent. guideline on wages, apparently have gone to war with the firemen. It is an untenable position. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to extricate himself from it.
I do not normally argue special cases. I am much more in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on this. But if we think that there are dangers we must at least acknowledge that in the case of the firemen there are genuine differences which are recognised by the population at large. That is why the firemen have the support of the public—and my hon. Friends are right: they do. In this instance I beg my right hon. Friend, if he must insist on his pay guidelines, not to make the firemen the make-or-break case. It is absolutely imperative, for the sake of the Government and our movement, that the Labour Party is not seen to be at war with the firemen. This issue must be solved.
I appeal to the Home Secretary. People are far more afraid of a conflagration than of inflation. It is ridiculous to find ourselves in the position in which the Government are apparently saying that a fair wage for the fire service could cause the end of the economic strategy. I do not agree with that economic strategy but, even in their own terms, the Government are putting themselves into a ridiculous position. It is nonsense to say that the firemen must be burned on the altar of the 10 per cent. guideline—and some of the population along with them.
It is not the wealthy in our society who should be giving us lectures about such people as the firemen. The Home Secretary should remember that some people have not needed to keep within the 10 per cent. guideline, not only for the reasons that have been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover but because if one has an income of £25,000 a year one has already received the equivalent of a gross wage increase of 20 per cent. as a result of the Chancellor's April Budget. Such people do not need the 10 per cent. guideline. They are outside it.
I also appeal to the Home Secretary to inject some urgency into the negotiations so that they may be meaningful, because they are not so at present. Tomorrow's negotiations will not be meaningful because no time element will be involved in them; there will be no sense of urgency. I was told that when the date for the resumption of negotiations was under discussion members of the

joint council got out their diaries and were saying such things as "There's a meeting of the county council policy committee on Tuesday"—and that in the middle of a firemen's strike!
That is just not good enough. The Home Secretary should get rid of the straitjacket and get some sense. There is no percentage in it for the Labour Government to be at war with the firemen.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I find it extremely difficult to agree with any of the speeches that have been made from Labour Benches today, bar two. I agreed first with the moving and persuasive speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and also—and I hope that this will not embarrass the hon. Member—with about 70 per cent. of the speech made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman may find that acutely embarrassing, but I agreed with him except when he mounted his class-hatred hobby-horse. He spoke a lot of good sense, and I have never been able to say such a thing before.
I shall try to compress my speech into about three minutes, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if it seems a little disjointed.
We cannot expect people to behave particularly honourably unless they are treated honourably. We are using double standards with the firemen in that we are expecting a special code of conduct from them while we are not prepared to abide by any special code of conduct ourselves.
I had the honour and privilege of visiting the operational headquarters of the London Fire Brigade this morning, and I can confirm the smooth-running and cheerful co-operation that is taking place between administrative staff, the Fire Brigade, the Army, police and the ambulance service. I doubt that such co-operation could have been organised so quickly, smoothly and with such good relations in any other country. Operations so far have been a complete success, and the Army was proud this morning to have had its first success in dealing with an incident in a high-rise block of flats.
However, we must not become complacent because, as the Home Secretary knows, the disaster potential in London


and throughout the country is extremely grave. We are now operating from 17 bases with old equipment, compared with 114 bases, modern equipment and trained people—and that shows the tissue thinness of the protection that the people of London are receiving today.
I cannot agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), because there are acute dangers that could confront untrained people using breathing apparatus. One has only to consider the accidents that occur in the use of aqualungs. It is a serious matter, and perhaps people should now be trained to use such apparatus. However, I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to come to the House the day after tomorrow to say that this tragic chapter has finished.
I wish to refer to a matter that has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)—who is no longer here—and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). This a matter of the closed shop. I ask the Home Secretary to mention this point specifically when he replies to the debate. If firemen belonging to a closed shop go to an incident—I believe that the Home Secretary would wish them to do so—would they be deprived of jobs after the strike? Unless firemen can be assured—and today is the occasion upon which such an assurances should be given—that there will be a no-victimisation clause written into any solution to the strike, they will be in an exteremely ambiguous position. Firemen must be told that if they take part in life-saving exercises they will not suffer from the loss of their jobs under Government legislation.
The Fire Brigades Union and the National Association of Fire Officers are frustrated, angry and sad. They feel that they are betraying their service, but they feel more seriously that the community is betraying them. Out of the blue and to the great surprise of the national joint council, the Home Secretary has introduced this business of a shorter working week. It is in that that we should be able to find a solution within the Home Secretary's own terms. We should be able to arrive at an almost immediate solution. I have spoken to fire brigade members and they long for a

quick solution. Their demands are not inflexible. I hope that this strike will be solved and that it will not last longer than another 24 hours.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael Morris: The only word with which I could agree in the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) was "urgency". For some weeks, I and other hon. Members have been following the pace of the negotiations. I was talking to firemen in my constituency before the weekend, and all of us have been surprised at the lack of urgency in the negotiations. It may be that underneath there has been more urgency than has been visible, but certainly none has been visible.
I hope the Home Secretary realises that there is some scepticism among firemen upon a point which has been raised by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and me. There have been repeated reports and the union would be heartened if the Home Secretary would give a commitment that, through the negotiating machinery—even if he cannot give such a commitment tonight—the results of the grading and positioning will be firmly implemented by the Government at some point and will not be shelved for some dim and distant future time only to be overtaken by a change of policy.
I cannot help but marvel over the degree of inflexibility that there now seems to be over the guidelines. There seemed to be some fair amount of flexibility in the negotiations at Ford's. It seems to me and to firemen that, if there can be flexibility there and flexibility in the negotiations for local authority manual workers, there ought to be some degree of flexibility in this case, whether it lies within the negotiations on hours, overtime done after reduced hours of work, an increased meal allowance or some form of productivity deal. I believe that there is room for genuine productivity. I ask the Home Secretary, for goodness sake let us get some urgency and positive suggestions into the negotiations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) raised an important point in relation to uniformed personnel. If these people whom we ask to do dangerous jobs are different from the mass of other people, it would be helpful if the TUC were asked to


recognise that fact. That would help negotiations and would help to differentiate between the rôles of firemen, police and the Armed Forces and those of the mass of other workers.
It is not enough for the Home Secretary to follow the negotiations. The firemen are on strike and lives are at risk. The time has come to give guidance and leadership and to suggest to the negotiators that they negotiate long and hard tomorrow so that a result is achieved and the men can go back to work.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I share the feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) in the critical note that he sounded about the excessive rigidity of the Home Secretary's position over the misnamed guidelines. It has become increasingly clear during the debate that the Home Secretary's handling of the dispute has lacked skill and sensitivity.
I say that particularly because definite evidence has emerged from the debate that earlier this year the Home Secretary raised firemens' expectations and gave them false hopes that the Government would be much more flexible and generous than they have been. The Home Secretary is shaking his head, but let him read and eat the words quoted by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), at the FBU conference in Bridlington. The right hon. Gentleman's words could be construed by the firemen only as an indication that an extra degree of flexibility would be shown to them.
The Home Secretary has put himself in the position of the Grand Old Duke of York in this matter. He led the firemen to the top of the flexibility hill and indicated the pastures of greater flexibility below them. Then, when faced with a strike, he has backed away and has become quite inflexible.
There are areas in which there could be some flexibility. The question of fringe benefits is an example. In addition, can the Home Secretary say whether the 10 per cent. figure is a guideline, an absolute limit or an average? He has not yet answered that question.
As regards fringe benefits, why should the police get a rent allowance worth £28

a week in central London while the firemen get nothing? Why should the police be in an advantageous position over travel and food allowances while the firemen are in a disadvantageous position?
If flexibility is not shown, there will be serious long-term consequences for the firemen in addition to the disastrous short-term consequences of this tragic strike. Since 1975, 2,500 firemen have left a force whose establishment is only 33,000. The overwhelming majority in this high wastage rate are young men who are turning to more lucrative economic pastures.
We have been struck in the debate and in our constituencies by how much public support there is for the firemen. They have a just claim, although they may have been using unjust methods to get the claim implemented. However, the Government must not act unjustly, and in the absence of flexibility and a much more constructive approach than we have had so far we must declare that the Government are not being flexible and are acting unjustly.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There are a number of points that I should like to answer. If I do not have time to cover them all, I shall get in touch with the hon. Members concerned.
I start with the issue of closed shops. I am advised that union membership agreements have been concluded in South Yorkshire, the West Midlands, Humberside and London. Guidance has been issued over the years by the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board in this respect, and what will happen when the strike ends is another matter.
The TUC has set up an independent review committee to hear complaints by individual members who are excluded or expelled from membership of a trade union because of the closed shop. This arrangement has nothing to do with legislation of recent years. The arrangements in these fire bridgades and the question of the closed shop were going on long before some people thought of the words "closed shop". There may be a problem, but I am sure that good sense will prevail.

Mr. John Page: rose—

Sir A. Meyer: rose—

Mr. Rees: I will not give way. There is not enough time.
Questions have been raised about the problems of fires in high-rise buildings and the fact that the ladders being used by the Army will not reach such fires. I am advised by my Fire Inspectorate that fires in high-rise buildings are not tackled by ladders. They are dealt with from inside. I am under no misapprehension that the Services can cope in the same efficient way as fire brigades, but what matters is getting into the building, and I am sure that the Service personnel will do the best they can.
I have been asked about breathing apparatus. This is not something that anyone can don straight away. Firemen are trained in the use of breathing apparatus. If it is not possible to go into a building without breathing apparatus, of course the Service men will not be able to go in. That is one of the deficiencies of the service that we are now providing.
In regard to red appliances and their use, I am advised that special training is required for the turntable ladders and that their use by soldiers is not on because of the nature of the vehicles, let alone any other aspect that may arise.
As regards the general situation as we move out of phases 1 and 2, it is the Government's strong view that the 10 per cent. policy is right. We stick by that.
We have talked about benchmarks, and analogies have been drawn with the benchmarks arrived at by independent inquiries. In this case, it is something for the negotiating procedure that has been going on this year. The McCarthy inquiry was part of the process. It is important to have a benchmark, but there can be no question of a commitment on how it can be phased once it is arrived at.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If the national joint council is able to reach agreement on some form of pay formula and a reduction in hours, can the Home Secretary say, without any commitment on phasing, that he would look favourably at that agreement and, as far as he can, seek to implement it?

Mr. Rees: We were involved in the technical work that was necessary in re-

gard to hours of work, but this aspect needs negotiation because of different arrangements in different forces. It is a matter for the NJC.
The benchmark that is arrived at will not involve my saying that I accept it. It has to be negotiated by the NJC and will not come from an independent inquiry, so it is not a matter of a blanket acceptance. Of course, we shall look at it favourably. I can go no further than that. I cannot use the same words as I have used in other fields. It is a matter for negotiation.
There is no sense in which I wish to see the fire service driven back to work or the union humiliated. I want the negotiating machinery to be used.
The question of the police pay claim has also been raised. The police NJC broke down completely. I was sad about that because the best place to talk is in the negotiating machinery that has been built up over the years. I want to see that developed in future weeks, and that is the basis on which we shall move.
The Government stick by the 10 per cent. figure. As to hours of work and danger money, these are matters that can develop and this is where the flexibility lies. They are matters that the FBU has been concerned about for a long time.

Sir A. Meyer: Will the Home Secretary give a word of advice at least, if not of encouragement, to those who are carrying on their duty during the present strike?

Mr. Rees: As far as my job is concerned and the work that is done, whether by the soldiers or anybody else, of course I approve of that. It would be extremely silly for me to become involved in the problems that arise in the FBU, the stresses and strains which may be there, between some of its members who are officers and some of them who are leading firemen who have worked. That is something that I have to think about. I do not want to see the fire service get into a situation arising out of this strike whereby the morale and the attitudes in it are such that we cannot carry on and build on what we have done before.
I understand the problems of the fire service very well and what we need to do. It is something on which we need to build. Some people pretend that it


can all be done at once. That is not possible. But we have a chance to build.
Therefore, I think that acceptance of the motion for the Adjournment would be the wrong approach. It will not be an easy matter in the next day or two or in the next week or two. I want to see this strike ended. I want to see a chance for the firemen to get the status in society that they want. It cannot be done in one blow overnight. That is the difficulty that we have got ourselves into in the last week or two. I will accept responsibility,

but so also must a lot of others. It has not come from just one direction.

Mr. Sillars: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 211.

Division No. 7]
AYES
[6.31 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Hatton, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, J. W.


Atkinson, Norman
Henderson, Douglas
Selby, Harry


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Skinner, Dennis


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Spriggs, Leslie


Bidwell, Sydney
Kerr, Russell
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Buchan, Norman
Lambie, David
Swain, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Costain, A. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Loyden, Eddie
Thompson, George


Crawford, Douglas
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dunlop, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Welsh, Andrew


Durant, Tony
Mikardo, Ian
Wigley, Dafydd


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Moonman, Eric
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fell, Anthony
O'Halloran, Michael



Flannery, Martin
Page, John (Harrow West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. James Sillars and


Griffiths, Eldon
Parry, Robert
Mr. John Robertson.


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Richardson, Miss Jo





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tam
Gould, Bryan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davidson, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Grocott, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Harper, Joseph


Bean, R. E.
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dempsey, James
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Boardman, H.
Dormand, J. D.
Hooson, Emlyn


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Horam, John


Boothrayd, Miss Betty
Duffy, A. E. P.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Huckfield, Les


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hunter, Adam


Buchanan, Richard
English, Michael
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Janner, Greville


Cant, R. B.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Cartwright, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Cohen, Stanley
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Concannon, J. D.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kaufman, Gerald


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kelley, Richard


Corbett, Robin
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lamborn, Harry


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lamond, James


Crawshaw, Richard
George, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cronin, John
Gilbert, Dr John
Luard, Evan


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Ginsburg, David
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Golding, John
McCartney, Hugh




McElhone, Frank
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Price, William (Rugby)
Tierney, Sydney


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Radice, Giles
Tinn, James


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tomlinson, John


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomney, Frank


Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mahon, Simon
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roper, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Michael


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Watkins, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rowlands, Ted
Watkinson, John


Meacher, Michael
Sandelson, Neville
Weetch, Ken


Mendelson, John
Sever, J.
Wellbeloved, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
White, James (Pollok)


Molloy, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Moyle, Roland
Small, William
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Noble, Mike
Snape, Peter
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Oakes, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Ogden, Eric
Staliard, A. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Orbach, Maurice
Steel, Rt Hon David
Woodall, Alec


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Woof, Robert


Palmer, Arthur
Stoddart, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Park, George
Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton E)


Parker, John
Strang, Gavin



Pavitt, Laurie
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Alf Bates.


Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — WALES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have not selected the amendment.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that we may return later to the purpose of the amendment? What we are seeking to do is to have a referendum before we get through the processes of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to say that, irrespective of whether the Bill is enacted, it will still be possible to have a referendum in Wales.

Mr. Speaker: I have read the amendment with care. It is not selected.

6.46 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
In commending the Bill to the House, may I repeat what has been previously said: that the Bill does not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supremacy of Parliament. Indeed. I believe that the Bill, by giving a measure of devolution to Wales, will help to preserve and strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom. It will ensure that a large measure of decision-making will be transferred to an Assembly in Cardiff. It will mean that decision-making will become closer to the people, not only in terms of geography but in the sense that more decisions will be taken by a democratically-elected Assembly as opposed to a Minister or a nominated body.
I cannot see how that will harm the unity of the United Kingdom. It will enhance it. I believe that the quality of decision-making will be improved. The decision-makers, drawn from all over Wales, will be more attuned to the needs

of the whole of Wales. The whole pattern of the decentralisation of power to the Welsh Office and the devolution of powers to the Welsh Assembly is quite clear. Those powers which are primarily concerned with environmental and social matters are to be devolved. Those which are primarily concerned with the economy, with industry, agriculture, training and employment, which go to the heart of the unity of the United Kingdom, are not. They will remain with the Welsh Office. I believe that this is the right balance, satisfying both the needs of unity and the needs of greater accountability.
The Government have listened to the House in the debates on the previous Bill. Constructive views were put forward and we have sought to respond. We have also taken the opportunity to simplify the measures proposed for Wales and to improve them in the light of representations in the House, from within the Labour movement and from the Liberals and others. I believe that the Bill as now presented sets out more clearly what is proposed for Wales and distinguishes more clearly what is to be devolved and what is to be reserved.
The guiding light of our efforts is to increase democracy and accountability, to give people a bigger say in decision-making. I want to see established a system of government that will be more attuned to the needs of the numerous communities that make up the people of Wales.

Sir Raymond Gower: I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for interrupting rather early, but an important matter arises at this point. He will be aware that education authorities have expressed deep anxiety lest, far from bringing things closer, this legislation will take education further away from the people, away From a body of the size of a county council to some- thing much larger. Will the Secretary of State comment on that?

Mr. Morris: I confess that I have not heard the argument put in that way. We are here clearing up the botch left by the Conservative Administration under which primary and secondary education were transferred to the Welsh Office but higher and further education were not, In our view at the time, that was wholly


indefensible. It has not worked out. What we seek to do now is, in the first instance, to hand those powers over to the Welsh Office to ensure that there is the machinery available for the Assembly in due course to take over the responsibility now carried on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and on my shoulders.
I have repeatedly said in the past, and I say it again, that this has nothing to do with local authority powers. It is ministerial powers that we are seeking to transfer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will in due course apply himself to that.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Morris: I am deliberately keeping my speech short so as to avoid any charge that Back Benchers are not able to take part.
I should make clear that the Government's broad policy on devolution as set out in a series of White Papers and in a statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the Lord President is given effect by the Bill. There have been some changes in presentation and detail which I believe will commend themselves to the House.
Let me deal first with some of the matters that have been omitted from this Bill. They include the rating and valuation system, the making of building regulations and agricultural functions other than land drainage and freshwater fisheries. There was not much scope for differences in practice in these fields, and all these and other changes simplify and shorten the Bill. Of more substance is the decision, following representations from my hon. Friends—in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Newport (Mr. Hughes) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans)—and the teachers' unions, to reserve the pay and pensions of teachers and, on the same reasoning, those of health service employees. I believe that these changes have been very welcome within the professions, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will be pleased with their efforts.
The Government's powers of intervention have been narrowed to what is considered essential to preserve political and economic unity. They now relate only to matters for which there is no devolved

responsibility in Wales—for example, defence and energy policy.
But the present Bill retains powers for the Government to intervene in certain areas where there are special problems. For instance, the Government will be able to intervene in order to safeguard England-Wales policy and interests on the English side of the border in relation to water services. Because rivers, and consequently water authority areas, cross over the England-Wales border, these powers remain essential. However, the Asesembly will have responsibility for water policy in Wales.
We have thought it right that in the matters where the Welsh Assembly has responsibility—for example, health and pollution control—it should also be given the power to implement EEC and other international obligations. This avoids risks and uncertainties over the extent of its jurisdiction. But, whenever necessary or desirable, the Government themselves will be able to ensure that international obligations are implemented within Wales, and elsewhere.
We have omitted from the present Bill some procedural details. On reflection, we believe that these are best left to the Assembly's standing orders.
We have reviewed our approach in the important field of complaints of maladministration. It is now proposed that the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner should be extended to the Welsh Assembly. This should be more clearly understood and more economical.
Another change which, I know, will be widely welcomed is the inclusion in the Bill of a provision requiring the Assembly to review the structure of local government in Wales. Wherever I go in Wales, the view is expressed that the last reorganisation of local government was bungled by the Conservative Party.

Sir Raymond Gower: Nonsense.

Mr. Morris: I move about a great deal in Wales, and I know that the people of Wales have had to suffer from it. What is wanted is an urgent review of the present system. I believe that the Welsh Assembly, with men and women representing every corner of Wales, will be uniquely qualified to carry out such a review. The Assembly will not be taking over— this is where the misconception in the mind of the hon. Member for Barry


(Sir R. Gower) arises—any tasks of local authorities. This I have said time and again. But I am sure that the Assembly will contain many who will understand what sort of local government machinery is required to provide the best and most economical system for Wales.

Mr. Leo Abse: Are we to understand that the review now provided for will be confined solely to boundaries, excluding functions? Is it being seriously said that the remit to the Assembly is not to include functions which are at present exercised by local authorities? Is it not a fact that the fear of the county councils, a very understandable fear, is that the Assembly will devour the councils because the Assembly itself will be judge as to what powers are to be available?

Mr. Morris: I hope that my hon. Friend will do me the service of reading Clause 13—

Mr. Abse: I have.

Mr. Morris: —which will explain to him the kind of remit, a very broad remit, which the Assembly will have. Let it be quite clear that it is not the intention, and it is not provided in the Bill, that any local authority powers should go to the Assembly. If Parliament eventually gives approval to the Bill, matters will rest as I have explained, and there is no question of the Assembly, as my hon. Friend put it, devouring the councils. I hope that that will be made manifestly plain. I canont add to or subtract from the words of Clause 13, which we shall deal with in due course in Committee.
I ask my hon. Friend to recognise that there is a great anxiety in Wales, whatever interested parties may say, whether they be councils, Members of Parliament or anyone else. Beyond peradventure, there is great anxiety that the present system is not the best. It is not working properly, and in my view, this is the opportunity to examine it at the earliest moment.

Mr. Roy Hughes: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right to speak of local government problems, especially after the highly inflationary reorganisation carried out by the Conservative Government. We certainly need a simplification of the structure now, because there is duplication of functions among many authorities. But, in making

progress, will my right hon. and learned Friend protect the interests of local government officers and ensure, if necessary, that they are incorporated into the Assembly structure?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and I am sure that he will make that point again in Committee. What we want is the most economical system, and I am sure that I carry him with me on that.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does the Secretary of State realise that he has given the clear impression that, whatever the conclusions of the review by the Assembly, he as Secretary of State, if he is still in office, will not allow powers and functions to be taken from the local authorities by the Assembly?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman must do me the service of reading the Bill. I say that with no disrespect. There is no proposal here for the transfer of any significant functions. It is not proposed in what is before the House.
There is one point with which I did not deal in my reply to an earlier intervention. If Parliament approves the Bill, it will be for the Assembly to make proposals, and it will be for the Government of the day and Parliament to decide what legislation is necessary if the changes that are proposed are to be implemented. That is the major point that has been missed by hon. Members. The ultimate power of disposing will lie with Parliament in whatever legislation is necessary.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) that there is nothing to prevent the Assembly from recommending that the district councils, for example, should swallow the county councils and make local government more local in Wales? What people complain about with the present set-up is that it has effectively centralised local government.

Mr. Morris: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point. No doubt he will study the wide terms of the powers proposed for the Assembly to carry out its investigation, and there will be a second bite at the cherry for the Secretary of State to make whatever proposals


he wishes to put to the House. The cardinal point that I want to make to the House, and I regret that this is not universally accepted—[Interruption.] I was never aware that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) was enthusiastic about the last piece of local government reform, particularly as it affected Pembrokeshire. This is not the first time that he has changed his stance.
As I go from one end of Wales to another, I find immense dissatisfaction with the present system of local government there. It is expensive and not easily run, and I believe that this is the opportunity to have a body drawn from all over Wales that will have on it people with wide experience who will be able to bring forward proposals for consideration. I think that they will be better proposals than the existing system, and I trust—this is the essence of the setting up of the Assembly—that they will be more acceptable than the proposals imposed upon Wales by the previous Government, with only minor representation from Wales.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the local government reorganisation carried out by the previous Government was a botch. During the previous debate I said that we could not escape the duty to deal with local government, but I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider whether, in the proposals that he is putting forward, he is not adding to the botch.
As well as reorganising local government, we are to have an Assembly. Our right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about an elected council for Wales, with a single-tier authority below. That was the proposal put to the Kilbrandon Commission by the Labour Party in Wales. That would have been a viable system. We have community councils, district councils and eight county councils. We are now to have an Assembly which, it is being said, is nothing to do with local government. The whole purpose of the Labour Party's argument was to have a top tier of local government.

Mr. Morris: I do not think that that is a correct interpretation of any of the deliberations in which I took part. We have gone over this on innumerable

occasions, and I shall return to it in a moment. [Interruption.] We have had the argument about names before. I attach no great importance to a name. What I want is a better system in Wales, and I return to the argument. The tier of government is there already. I must ask my hon. Friends who do not accept that from me to study the way in which decision-making is entrusted to my hands and to those of my right hon. Friends. I shall come to deal with the whole host of nominated bodies right across Wales. The tier of government is there, and the sooner that my hon. Friends and Conservative Members recognise that the better it will be.
I come back to what I was saying before I was interrupted on one or two occasions. I am sure that the Assembly will contain many people who will understand what sort of local government machinery is required to provide the best and most economic system in Wales. That is why we have written Clause 13 into the Bill. The Assembly will clearly have to consult local government organisations, the unions and other interests concerned before reporting to the Secretary of State. I repeat that if changes are proposed legislation will be necessary, and it will be for the Government and Parliament to consider what effect is to be given to the Assembly's recommendations.
The present Bill sets out in detail the Government's proposals for a referendum in Wales. Here again, we are responding to various views expressed in the House and in Wales. We provide for the referendum to be held after the Bill has been passed but before the first commencement order is approved by Parliament. I shall return to this question later, but perhaps I should just say now that in the Government's view the stage at which the referendum is proposed to be held is the right one.
It is important that people should know clearly what they are voting about, and they will not be able to do that until the Bill has completed its parliamentary stages. On the other hand, it will be for Parliament finally to decide, in the light of the referendum result and all other circumstances, whether action should be taken to bring the Act into operation.
I want to turn to some of the principal features of the Bill which I have not so far mentioned. The framework of the


constitutional arrangements proposed is a system designed to combine effective decision-making and democratic control. The Assembly will be empowered to set up a number of subject committees, and will be required to ensure that the balance of parties in those committees reflects that in the Assembly. I believe that that will ensure that while, as in any democracy, the view of the majority shall prevail, minorities will have an effective rôle in the committees.
The leadership of the committees will be in the hands of the Executive members, and they and a small number of others will comprise the Executive Committee of the Assembly. Within that framework it will be for the Assembly to evolve its own detailed mode of operation, but I believe that we shall in this way be able to ensure that the representatives of North and South Wales, of industrial Wales and rural Wales, will be able to participate in the democratic control of decision-making.
The Assembly will be charged with a wide area of government. It is no good saying—I return to one of the previous interventions—that a new tier of government is being proposed. It is not so. The tier of government is there already, either in my or my colleagues' hands, or in the hands of the nominated bodies in Wales. What is going to happen, if the House agrees to the Bill, is that a wide area of decision-making in fields covering health, education, housing, the environment, roads, cultural matters and the operation of nominated bodies will be transferred to a democratically-elected body.
The functions are defined in Clauses 10 to 12 and in Schedule 2. Of course, when the Bill was published the old cry went up again in some quarters that the Assembly would just be a talking shop. Those who say that have obviously not read, or at least not understood, the Bill. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth. The Assembly will take over the powers that I and other Ministers now have in these areas and will exercise much closer democratic scrutiny than Ministers and Members of this House can now exercise. The Assembly will be responsible for deciding rate support grant, it will decide the pattern of motorways and trunk roads and the allocation

of resources to build them, and it will decide the pattern and development of the National Health Service in Wales. There is no subject about which people feel more passionately in Wales than the provision of hospitals.
If decisions on these matters—and they are not easy decisions—are taken by an elected Assembly, they will, I believe, be more acceptable to those who are affected. If the nationalists really believe that these powers are insignificant, I believe that it merely demonstrates their isolation from reality and from what really concerns people in Wales. It is decisions on matters of this sort about which the people really care.
The accountability of nominated bodies in Wales is, to put it at its mildest, very limited. I can understand why the Conservative Party might be in favour of the nominated bodies. They can be the means whereby a minority party in Wales is able to perpetuate its influence in or out of office, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport has repeatedly said, and I cannot imagine anything more undemocratic than that But I cannot understand how anyone who has not a vested interest can oppose a democratisation of the system. This is one of the essential aims of the Bill.
There are, of course, instances where we have to propose for sound practical reasons that the body itself will remain in existence, but it will become fully answerable for its Welsh activities to the Assembly. In the case of statutory bodies operating wholly in devolved fields and solely in Wales, the Assembly is to have the power to assume their functions directly if it so chooses, subject only to the final consent of the Secretary of State.
The system of financing the devolved services will be crucial to the success of devolution. We believe that our proposals for a block fund and related arrangements are fair and practical; and when I say "fair" I mean both to Wales and to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The majority of the Kilbrandon Royal Commission came down in favour of the expenditure-based method of financing. The Government believe that the Commission was right. An expenditure-based system will take full account of


the needs of Wales and will ensure a fair distribution of resources over the United Kingdom as a whole and between devolved and non-devolved services. At the same time, the payment of a block fund will give the Assembly a wide measure of discretion in the way it allocates resourcees to different services.
Some critics of the block fund system argue that it will mean hard argument between the Government and the Assembly. I acknowledge that there will be hard-fought negotiations over the block fund, but any system of government where there is a split responsibility has experience of this. Indeed, we have it in our relationship with local government as regards the rate support grant. Vigorous negotiations on the block fund will certainly not endanger political stability in this country.
The estimates of additional costs arising from devolution, given in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, are modest and reasonable. They are based on the assumption that the Assembly will choose an effective and economical method of operation. I am sure that Assembly Members, like the Members of this House, will be concerned that the expenditure they directly generate should be kept to a reasonable level.
But, however modest the provision we plan to make, there must be some additional costs arising from our proposals. To those who say that these are unnecessary, I ask: what price do they put on democracy? At what point are we going to say that we can no longer afford better democratic control? Is it not desirable—is it not even essential—when decisions on public spending priorities become more and more difficult, when they need to reflect more and more closely the needs of the people, that these decisions should be placed ever more firmly in the hands of representatives of ordinary men and women? I believe that our proposals will improve government in Wales and that the modest cost is fully justified by the benefits that will result.
The Government see devolution as an essential reform—a reform in the main traditions of a party committed to social change and improvement. The issues

cannot be allowed to drift on a sea of indecision. It is now over four years since the Kilbrandon Commission reported. I believe that this is the time for action.

Mr. Abse: I interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend only because he appears to have left the financial provisions. Has he come, or has he not yet come, to Clause 72, a clause which has not yet been before the House and which has great significance for the issue of confidence which can arise between the Assembly and this House?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that we shall return to that clause in the course of the proceedings on the Bill. I assure my hon. Friend that for any actions it takes the Assembly will be liable, in exactly the same way as I am liable, in the ordinary courts of the land. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend that the same kind of jurisdiction will arise qua the Assembly and that it will be no different from the way in which I now exercise my responsibilities.

Mr. Abse: There is clearly within the Act—which I trust that the Secretary of State has read— in Clause 72 a provision which makes it clear that for the first time a situation is arising in which we are telling the Assembly that it will have the funds to commence litigation and defend litigation against this House. Therefore, despite all that has been said in the past to the effect that there will be no conflict between the Assembly and Westminster, the Secretary of State is making provision for heavy litigation. Surely he should be at least commenting upon this novel constitutional feature that an Attorney-General who is supposed to be a judicial officer will in fact be taking over political issues and becoming embroiled in issues and making decisions of a political character between this House and the Assembly. This is a matter of fundamental constitutional importance, and I am surprised that the Secretary of State is deaing with it in so perfunctory a manner.

Mr. Morris: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who certainly did not make his submission in any perfunctory manner, will want to return to this point. I do not chide him for using the word "Act". We are in fact dealing with the Bill.
I fear that my hon. Friend's words were, to say the least, extravagant. I can be corrected if I am wrong, but the clause to which he referred has no such significance for litigation between the Assembly and the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to reflect upon this matter and return to it in Committee. The clause deals with the issue of vires.
I repeat that on the issue of vires the Assembly will be in exactly the same position. We are not setting up any particular system of courts or machinery for the Assembly. As to the Acts it inherits and the responsibilities it will have, the Assembly will be subject, in the way that it discharges them, to exactly the same legal processes as I am subject. If I err in any way in the way that I carry out my executive functions, I am liable, if I exceed my jurisdiction or behave improperly, to be dealt with in the ordinary courts of the land. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend. I have not in any way sought to deal with his submission in a perfunctory manner. I think that he has misunderstood the position.
I have spoken for quite a long time. I do not want to take up much more of the time of the House. I want to make two final points. First, devolution has nothing to do with separatism. On the contrary, I believe that devolution is essential for the underlying unity of the United Kingdom. There is nothing wrong with diversity and flexibility within a united country. Our constitution has long been renowned for just those qualities. It is diversity and flexibility that devolution is all about.
Secondly, some of my hon. Friends have argued for a referendum. Some have done so because they are either far from satisfied that devolution is wanted in Wales or because they are deeply opposed to the concept. I understand and I respect their views. I hold different views. The Government have responded to our hon. Friends who urged that the people of Wales should have the opportunity of saying "Yea" or "Nay". I trust on this basis that my hon. Friends will be satisfied. Opposing this Bill would be the denial of the rights so eloquently demanded, and conceded by the Government. That denial would cause grievances to fester perhaps for generations.
Under Labour Governments, great progress has been made in the machinery of government in Wales. We compare well with the absentee rulers from the Tory Party who used to decide what was best for us. The long list of Tory Ministers for Welsh affairs with constituencies right across England but never in Wales would be difficult to explain to any inter-parliamentary delegation from far-flung corners of the globe.
How does one explain the whole galaxy of talented stars who have been stewards of Wales—for example, Maxwell Fyfe, the former right hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, Henry Brooke, who represented Hampstead, Charles Hill, who represented Luton, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), of all places, and others who have lost Welsh seats or failed to gain one? There was Gwilym Lloyd George, the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, and the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). That is the history of recent government in Wales. It is no wonder that the Opposition will cling to the formula of no change. Kilbrandon came and Kilbrandon went, and there was not a squeak from the Conservative Party by way of evidence to the Royal Commission.
I believe that our proposals are well founded. I believe that they are needed in Wales. I believe that as they respond to the wishes of the House they should be put to the test in Wales. I commend the Bill.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Secretary of State for Wales has presented his Bill as a great act of administrative devolution, a measure constructed out of a passionate concern for democratic principles, devised with no other object but to bring government closer to an afflicted and clamorous people. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. In our January debates the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) suggested that that Bill was an act of political expediency. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) rightly pointed out that no one concerned primarily with administration would select the Principality of Wales, handed down to us by the Tudors, as a proper place for it. Nor, if their real concern was the lack of democratic


control over Government and its agencies or its remoteness from the people, would they choose to isolate out of a population of 55 million the 5 million Scots and the 2¾ million Welsh.
The reality is that we are dealing not with administrative devoluton but with national devolution that is offered for short-term political considerations on the basis of a claim to nationhood. In that respect Plaid Cymru is much more honest than the Government. It does not pretend that it is on any other basis or for any other reason that it advances the claim for Wales to have special treatment.
The fact that nationhood is the justification rather than grounds or administrative logic is of crucial significance when we consider the probable results of the Bill. As I said when we debated the White Paper in January 1976
The act of isolating the treatment of Wales and Scotland because of their sense of nationhood at once sets them apart and sets us on a momentous and dangerous course."—[Official Report, 15th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 592.]
When I listen to the arguments advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman I marvel at the insensitivity of Ministers and the astonishing forbearance of English Members. Do they not care for democracy? Why should their constituents suffer nominated bodies that operate in a manner that the right hon. and learned Gentleman regards as intolerable? Why should the English endure government by a remote bureaucracy? If all these things are as bad as the Government make out, why do they not make a serious attempt to provide an Assembly for Britain as a whole and not just for a fragment of it? I can well understand the irritation of English Members as they see the Welsh and the Scots picked out for these alleged privileges and the economic benefits that they fear may follow.
Once again Plaid Cymru is honest and clear-sighted about the consequences. It states quite plainly that its object is separatism. It wishes for dominion status—namely, the same sort of relationship that Canada and Australia have with the United Kingdom. It is not necessary to be a nationalist to be taken down that road. If we are given a separate sort of Government on the basis that we are a

nation, it will not be long before we feel aggrieved that, unlike any other nation, we do not have the power to legislate or raise taxation; that, unlike any other nation, we can decide how many hospitals, schools and roads we need to build but not how much money we shall have to build them.
The Bill gives Wales not merely an Assembly but a form of government. Despite the contrived subtlety of its committee structure and the quaint, almost ludicrous, title given to its First Minister—the Government might have changed that since the Scotland and Wales Bill was debated—that is how it will be regarded. When that Government fail to meet the expectations of the people—and what Government do not from time to time?—they will blame the Government at Westminster. They will demand the right to run their own affairs, make their own laws and impose their own taxation. Given the range of their responsibilities—almost all the services that most matter to ordinary people—and the limitations of their power, their members would be inhuman if they were not to react in that way, even if there were not in the Assembly one political party with no other object in mind.
The settlement proposed in the Bill simply cannot last. It is said that we should have the imagination to be able to meet in different ways the varied aspirations and needs of those in different parts of these islands, and that there is no inherent reason why the Welsh and the Scots should feel themselves to be different but should not be treated differently. Indeed, there is not. However, that will not be achieved by inflating national aspirations without providing the means adequately to fulfil them. Nor will it be achieved by cataloguing a whole series of blemishes in our system of government and offering a cure only to the minority. We do not solve a problem by attacking it piecemeal. In taking that approach one merely produces a structure that is unstable.
If I came to believe that the arguments that have been advanced for change were so compelling as to be irresistible, I should seek to find a solution in some form of federalism. Indeed, sooner than many realise we may come to that, but until we reach the moment when that is an acceptable solution to a sufficient


number of our countrymen, I do not feel any sense of unease in defending the status quo, by which I mean a system based on a single Executive for the whole of Great Britain and on the legislative supremacy of this place. I do not believe that there is a halfway house that will endure.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Perhaps I should not interrupt in a Welsh debate, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the sentiments that he has recently expressed are a bit different from those put forward yesterday by his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) on the Scottish Bill.

Mr. Edwards: I make two observations. First, because I believe that what is proposed affects the government of the whole of the United Kingdom, it seems right that Members from all parts of the House should intervene in these debates. They will all be affected by the consequences. Secondly, I do not believe that there is anything that I have said that is in any way incompatible with the thoughts of my right hon. Friend or with anything that he said yesterday.

Mr. William Ross: Hear, hear. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) did not say anything.

Mr. Edwards: The Secretary of State failed to address himself to the central question. He failed, as he has failed before, to deal convincingly or adequately with any of the detailed and powerful arguments that have been advanced from all parts of the House during our successive debates on these proposals. He chose instead—I understand the reason—to concentrate on the changes that have been made and on the details of his proposals. He launched into his usual attack upon the Conservative Party. He challenged our right in Wales to fight the Bill on behalf of the Welsh people.
I do not blame the Secretary of State for that, but I do remind him that he is the heir to great estates which he played no part in building—the inheritance of old-established Labour loyalties in Wales which were brought together not on the basis of this Bill but by the events of history, and it is a fact that the period in which the present devolution scheme has

been before us has coincided with a marked decline in Labour support in Wales.
The mandate theory is pretty good bosh when applied to an individual measure, but never more so than in this instance, when so many Labour supporters would reject the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assertion that their votes for his party committed them to support of this Bill. He knows that on this issue many of those outside the Conservative Party share our view that a substantial proportion of the Welsh people—I believe a majority—are hostile to it, proud to be Welsh but proud, equally, to be British. They demand that we should fight it, and we should be failing in our duty as an Opposition if we failed to respond and to reflect the strength of opinion in Wales.
The fact that the Government have reluctantly conceded a referendum in no way diminishes our duty in this respect. I cannot accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. It cannot be the proper function of Parliament to pass Bills that it believes to be bad simply to give the electorate an opportunity to vote on them. On a constitutional issue it is one thing to say "As a Parliament we think that this is a desirable measure. Do you want it? You have a right of veto." It is quite another to pass something that we believe to be wrong hoping that the electorate will reject it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: May I follow that thought? If we accepted that procedure of submitting to our makers the works of our hands, the referendum would be addressed to all those who have sent us here—all of us who are to produce this measure. It would not be submitted to a section of the electorate who sent us here.

Mr. Edwards: I entirely accept that argument. The fact that the Bill has passed through Parliament and become an Act will be regarded as a stamp of approval by many of the electorate, a sort of badge of quality, and supporters of the measure will present it in that light. They will say "It has been passed by Parliament. You can give it your approval with confidence."
I am certain that our duty as individual Members remains to judge this Bill


on its merits, and the inclusion of a referendum clause provides no reason for not voting against its Second Reading. I believe that those who said yesterday—no doubt others will follow today—that although they dislike the Bill and will campaign against it in a referendum they will allow it to pass on Second Reading are playing a dangerous game and will undermine the cause that they believe in.
Both the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House assert that the Conservative Party has no interest in democratic accountability. They repeat the words like an incantation, as though that gives them a special value. I am encouraged by the fact that some of their Back Benchers who hold political views very different from mine but whom I acknowledge as dedicated democrats all feel the same dislike as I do for this Bill. Judging by their reaction, enthusiasm for the Bill is not a necessary test of democratic feeling.
I would be rather more impressed by their sincerity if the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House showed a good deal more enthusiasm for a Welsh day debate on the Floor of the House to discuss all the matters that directly confront us at present, and if they had not repeatedly rejected our proposals for a Select Committee on Welsh Affairs so that we could probe and examine the performance of the Government and their agencies. Democratic accountability begins at home.
Anyway, it is possible to enlarge democratic accountability as well, without any new institutions, simply by getting central Government off the backs of local authorities. As I have gone round Welsh local authorities this summer, I have heard the complaint made time and again that decisions of local elected councillors have been overruled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Welsh Office bureaucrats. I regard it as a high priority for a Conservative Government greatly to extend the freedom of the existing local authorities.
We can make a start by reductions in the activities of the Welsh Office's roads division and in the supervision of local authority housing plans. Let us bring government genuinely closer to the people by making full use of the potential

existing in the reorganised local authorities instead of taking it away from them to a remote Assembly in Cardiff, which, despite the denials, repeated again today by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is exactly what this Bill will do.
It must be profoundly irritating for the Secretary of State that on this point no one now believes him. He has repeatedly told us—he said it three or four times in his speech just now— that these proposals would not affect the functions of local government. But as the right hon. Member for Down, South, who has studied these proposals with care, told the House on 18th January,
Everyone knows that genuine local government in Wales will be crushed and squashed if ever the provisions … come into force."—[Official Report, 18th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 160.]
Even Welsh local authorities, which, with endearing naivety, originally believed the Secretary of State are now beginning to realise that they were conned. In its discussion paper on proposals for further local government reorganisation, the Welsh Counties Committee, after quoting all the assurances it had received from Ministers, says:
Prior to the publication of the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Welsh Counties Committee had supported the concept of Devolution … Whether the Welsh Counties Committee would have adopted this approach in 1974 if Ministers of the Crown and others who have subsequently changed their tune and who now urge further reorganisation as a concomitant to Devolution had not made the statements attributed to them as shown above is open to conjecture.
The Association of County Councils says in its memorandum that it is
gravely concerned that the proposals will weaken local government in Wales.
It has always been the probability that if one set up an Assembly on an all-Wales basis powers in time would pass to it from local authorities. The Government's own consultative document on the implications for England of devolution pointed out in paragraph 54 that
Many functions of the Counties would need to be raised to the new regional authorities.
If that is true in England, it is equally true in Wales.
The reason is clear. Central Government at present retains wide power to interfere with the decisions of local authorities, and those powers to interfere are


to be transferred to an Assembly, where they will be implemented by committees, with the result, as the Association of County Councils has put it, that
At two levels in Wales there will be committees of democratically-elected representatives dealing with the same services over the same areas.
Ministers and officials wish to interfere—and I shall be charitable here—out of desire to maintain overall standards. The Assembly committees will interfere for the most powerful of all reasons—because some of them will have an electoral interest in doing so.
There is another reason. The Assembly is to control the block grant and is to negotiate the rate support grant with the Government. The local authorities are, therefore, to be isolated from the most important single negotiation that they undertake in the course of a year with the central Government. The probability that transfer of powers will take place becomes a certainty if one undertakes a further reorganisation of local government.
An hon. Member interjected earlier "What of the district authorities?" Many of them who are most enthusiastic for change are already advocating that some major county functions should be transferred to the Assembly. But as the Welsh counties point out,
of the many who advocate transfer of 'strategic' functions from local government to an Assembly, there is not one who has considered the size and remoteness of the Assembly in Cardiff.
With ample justification the Welsh counties speak of
the unacceptable nature of proposals to centralise in the hands of a regional body which, by its nature is infinitely larger and more 'remote' than any existing County Council.
We are now entering a prolonged period of uncertainty for local government, which is wrong and unnecessary. The real irony is that a measure of devolution that its supporters justify on the ground that it will bring government closer to the people will inevitably take a good deal of it away from them.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I recognise that we are about to enter a period of grave difficulty for local government. Will the hon. Member at least concede that if the Opposition had not proceeded with local

government reorganisation and had implemented the Kilbrandon recommendations we would not be experiencing the present difficulties?

Mr. Edwards: Whatever had been done about local government, if the pattern proposed had been single-tier district local authorities under an Assembly it is inevitable that considerable powers would have been transferred to the top tier, for the reason set out in the consultation document for England. The whole relationship of the Welsh people with this Parliament will be changed for the worse.
I hope that hon. Members will understand and forgive me if I speak in rather personal terms. Like many hon. Members, I spent most of Friday and Saturday with my constituents. I held my surgeries, visited an old people's home and a sheltered workshop, and I met about 30 unfortunate people whose homes had been damaged by flood water. That flood tells us something about the much criticised relationship between central Government at Westminster and the people in the country. Those who were involved in the disaster spent one hour with two senior officials from the Welsh Office and an hour with their Member of Parliament, who had discussed the issue in detail the previous Wednesday with the Minister directly responsible at Westminster. Nothing very remote in that relationship. It is hard to see how contact with an Administration in Cardiff could be closer or more effective.
This weekend I was conscious that if the Bill goes through my relationship with my constituents will never be the same again. I should have to say to almost everybody that I met this weekend "I am sorry but I can do nothing for you. You must see an Assembly man." With all the social functions taken from us, I suppose that in Wales we shall cease to hold surgeries, become detached from the day-to-day anxieties of our constituents, and take a lofty view of economic matters and international affairs.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Could not the hon. Member hold surgeries on the pressing interests of his constituents in foreign affairs, defence and macro-economic policy?

Mr. Edwards: I have just said that it is on that that we shall have to concentrate our minds.
I know that I shall be the loser and that I shall regret the change deeply, but will my constituents benefit? I shall still have to debate and decide on the social legislation that affects them. However, I and the rest of us in Wales will do so without the knowledge and experience that gives our contributions value. At best we shall be reporting secondhand and the Government will no longer be introducing social legislation in Wales on the basis of their own administrative experience. As a result there will be what the Kilbrandon Commission regarded as an impoverishment of the legislative process.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The hon. Member began by saying that he had some sympathy with a federal solution. If there were to be a federation of the nations of these islands, would his relationship with his constituents be as it it is now?

Mr. Edwards: The responsibility of a federal Parliament would be different from that of an Assembly because it would have a legislative role. A federal Parliament at Westminster would have a totally different function, as it does in every federation. That is not the proposal that we are debating.
It is hard to see how Welsh or Scottish Members will ever again play quite the same part here. How could an Aneurin Bevan, steeped in the social experience of his own town, come to Westminster to transform the lives not only of the Welshmen he represented but of all his countrymen, whom he valued just as highly? It is hard to believe that he would have given this legislation a warm welcome. He would have abhorred the narrow nationalism and parochialism that the Bill represents, as do some who follow him in the Labour Party today.
The effect of the Bill must be to weaken the impact of Welsh Members on the Government and to weaken the influence of the Secretary of State in the British Cabinet. That is bound to be bad for Wales.
Although we shall be deprived of so much influence in Wales on these great social questions as they affect our constituents, since we shall be unable to question Ministers or press them for action, by our voices and by our votes we shall help to decide policy for England.

With our Scottish colleagues, who without a legislative rôle will literally have no say in these matters in their own constituencies, we shall be a decisive influence on the political complexion of the English Government.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), by his staccato and oft-repeated interjections in our debates, has helped to make this point clear. He has made it so clear that it has become what was described in the House yesterday as "the West Lothian question". It has emerged as one of the central flaws in the Bills.
That which was acceptable as the price for a political settlement in the case of a dozen Ulster Members could never be acceptable for long if more than 100 Welsh and Scottish Members decided for England what they had no right to decide for their own countries. Despite that, Ministers do not appear to have even addressed their minds to the problem. The Secretary of State today passed the issue by without a mention.
Sometimes it is implied that English Members should stand aside from these debates. Anyone who imagines that the Bill does not concern the government of England deludes himself.
I turn from the central objections about the nature of the legislation to a specific criticism of the structure that is proposed. Instead of the Cabinet system with which we are familiar, the Government propose a system of committees, which is supposed to involve minorities in the decision-making process. I fear that it will do nothing of the kind; it will simply obscure where responsibility lies.
I am wholly in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who demolished the Government's case in the 1976 debate when he said:
if we are to have an Assembly, for heaven's sake let us have it based on a parliamentary rather than a committee system. Let us have it open, public and esteemed, not following the model of the county councils".
Whatever the faults of this House, blame or credit can clearly be apportioned to those responsible.
Under the system in the Bill, minorities would share the collective blame but would have little influence on the decisions. Those would be taken by the


Executive Committee, largely formed from the Executive members of the individual committees, to whom power could be delegated, and almost certainly drawn entirely from the majority party.
Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman got it right when he asked:
What does that mean in practical terms in Wales? It means delegating the power to the party boss on that committee."—[Official Report, 15th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 656–7.]
The Secretary of State may brush the criticisms aside, but the Welsh people will well understand the implications. It will be deeply disturbing for many in Wales inside and outside local government that negotiations on the rate support grant and the allocation of the block grant, which will make local government subservient to the Assembly, will be in the hands of a party caucus.
I do not propose to repeat in detail all the other criticisms that I voiced in the debates of December and January a year ago. I shall simply say that serious anxieties remain in the countryside and in the North about the domination that would be exercised by industrial Wales, and that deep hostility exists about the cost of the bureaucracy involved.
The Secretary of State has thought it important to prove that he is not establishing an extra tier of government. He said that he did not care about names. Frankly, I do not mind what he calls it either. The fact is that there will be new buildings, new offices and a whole lot of self-important people, 1,150 new bureaucrats—I suspect that the Secretary of State has got the forecast number down by 150 since we last looked at the measure by slipping 150 into the Welsh Office while we have been discussing things, in order to put up the starting point but perhaps there is another explanation; there will be annual costs of at least £12½ million and start-up costs of £6½ million. It may or may not add up to an extra tier, but it all constitutes more complicated government, more expensive government and more bureaucratic government.
In the case of Scotland it is argued that, however formidable all the objections may be, the strength of Scottish feeling is more important still. It is said that too much water has flowed under the bridge to turn back now. That argument does not apply in Wales. It is

impossible to suggest on the basis of any substantial evidence that Welsh public opinion demands this change. All that can fairly be said—I think that I am being absolutely fair—is that an influential minority demands the Bill, while many more are apathetic or deeply hostile. Not even the most enthusiastic supporters of this legislation can claim that there is that consensus that should be the basis for major constitutional change.
That being so, the House is entirely free to act on its own judgment of the Bill and reject it, confident that that act will cause no great political upheaval in Wales and equally confident that it will not bring down the Government. Whatever might have been the consequences of a defeat on the Scottish Bill, nobody here believes for a moment that the Prime Minister would go to the country and fight a General Election on the loss of a Welsh Bill that most of the Welsh people do not want.
The Bill should be rejected for the following overriding reasons. It threatens the unity of Britain by seeking to establish a system that would focus discontent and concentrate it in a form likely to create hostility to this Parliament and the constitutional arrangements themselves. It would be devastating to local government in Wales, and far from bringing government closer to the people it would take a great deal of it further away. It would destroy the position of Welsh Members of Parliament, weaken the influence of Wales on the government of Britain and create a political situation that could not endure because it could not be acceptable to the people of England and to their elected representatives.
Therefore, in the interests of the people of Wales and all the people of the United Kingdom, I beg the House to reject the Bill.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I do not propose to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) in great detail. I think that I can summarise what he said by saying that he is against devolution to an elected Assembly in Wales and always has been. His speech was a repetition of what we have heard from him before.
But the hon. Gentleman said one thing that was of great interest, and his right


hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said it in his speech yesterday. The hon. Gentleman said that he recognised that federalism might come. What I and the rest of the House would like to know is whether he and his right hon. Friend believe in the concept of federalism. Does he regard it as a policy that his party might well adopt in the near future?

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I made it quite clear that I am personally sympathetic to the concept of federalism. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my previous speeches. If he looks back to one of them on this subject, he will see that I enlarged on the matter and made my view perfectly plain. But, like any other constitutional change, this is one that must be acceptable to the people and I do not believe—I think that this is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said—that we have yet reached the point where federalism is generally acceptable in such a way that we could put legislation through this House.

Mr. Hughes: The Conservative Party has seldom been in advance of public opinion. Therefore, it is refreshing to hear the hon. Gentleman say what he did. One can only regard this as a remarkable conversion. We hope to hear more from the hon. Gentleman about federalism.
There are some matters about which there will be general agreement in this debate. Whatever our views, we must accept that there is a clear election commitment by the Labour Party. The issues of devolution have been well ventilated in the House and in the Press and other media. It cannot be argued today, as some hon. Members argued in previous debates, that hon. Members representing English constituencies have been taken by surprise and were not aware of what was going on. Certain hon. Members are bitterly opposed to devolution of any kind. They can believe that even the modest democratic assembly will inexorably lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. They are probably genuine in their belief, but none of them, can say that there has been a lack of discussion and consultation.
Many of the urgent criticisms that were heard in our debates last year have been

met in the Bill. For example, the hon. Member for Pembroke devoted a large part of his speech in January to a plea for a separate Welsh Bill. Now he has his separate Bill, and we are debating it, but he does not seem very grateful for it.
Hon. Members will also be fortified by the knowledge that at the end of the road they have the safeguard for which they fought so vigorously and to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred—a referendum. "Let the people of Wales decide" was the cry of hon. Members a few months ago. The people of Wales are now to have the opportunity of deciding next autumn. By all means let the Bill be thoroughly debated, and let it be amended in Committee, but, after telling the Welsh people that they were to have the chance of expressing their views, it would be offensive to deny them the opportunity. That is how it would be regarded in Wales—not only in Anglesey, but in Gwent and Glamorgan. From north to south people will say that they have been let down by Opposition Members if they are deprived of the opportunity to vote in a referendum.

Mr. Abse: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is humbug and hypocrisy that, when the Secretary of State went round Wales saying that there would be a referendum "over his dead body", to use his words, he should be sitting there—

Mr. John Morris: Where was that said?

Mr. Abse: Does not my right hon. Friend—

Mr. John Morris: Where was it said?

Mr. Abse: My right hon. and learned Friend should contain himself. Does not my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) think that, after so determined a fight against a referendum by the Secretary of State, it is humbug and hypocrisy now for him to come along and effect to speak as if he and those who thought like him should be regarded as saviours for giving the people of Wales the opportunity to make their view known?

Mr. Hughes: It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend should have used the words "humbug and hypocrisy." My right hon.


and learned Friend the Secretary of State has for many years been a strong advocate of devolution; he was also perfectly entitled to dislike the concept of a referendum. The Government have decided that there should be a referendum and my right hon. and learned Friend joined in the collective responsibility for that decision. It is wrong to call it humbug and hypocrisy. If my hon. Friend proposes to start using language like that, I should inform him that the people of Anglesey are capable of using equally strong language—in both English and Welsh. Therefore, I strongly advise my hon. Friend, for his own sake, to modify his terms.
I am grateful to the Government for introducing the Wales Bill concurrently with the Scotland Bill. On 26th July my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the Government would
be fully and equally committed".—[Official Report, 26th July 1977; Vol. 936, c. 313.]
to both Bills. My right hon. Friend has kept his word. A good deal of criticism has been levelled at him in our discussions on this subject, but it is to his very great credit that at no time has he wavered in his conviction or determination to honour the Government's commitment. I think that his record in this matter will stand the test of time.
There is a considerable difference between the Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill. It is so great as to constitute one of principle. The difference is that the Scottish Assembly would have the power of primary and subordinate legislation with an Executive drawn from the Assembly. On the other hand, the Welsh Assembly will have the power of subordinate legislation and executive power whilst the Assembly itself will be the Executive. Scotland is to have an Assembly and a Government. The Scottish Assembly will have a primary legislative capacity over a wide area. For that reason, the Scotland Bill is of considerably greater constitutional significance than the Wales Bill. We must recognise that fact. I made that very point to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) two or three years ago when we discussed the matter shortly after the publication of the Kilbrandon Report, and he recognised it.
I understand that Northern Ireland Members—unfortunately not here—are attracted to a good part of the Wales Bill. Therefore, I hope that they will support us in the Lobby tonight.
Some hon. Members get over-excited about the shining virtues of the unitary state and of centralisation. No one could say that the Wales Bill strikes at the root of the unitary state. I mentioned the changes from the Scotland and Wales Bill, most of which I welcome. However, I should like to mention one or two points of detail.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend, because I must curtail my speech. Many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
I note that Part II of the Bill makes for much greater flexibility and less detail about the way that Assembly business is to be conducted. That is a sensible change.
I warmly welcome Clause 13, which provides for a review of the structure of local government in Wales. The hon. Member for Pembroke said that the people of Pembroke objected to the reorganisation of local government. The old county of Pembroke is opposed to Dyfed and has passed a resolution asking for its dissolution. I believe that Pembroke will, in fact, commend my right hon. and learned Friend on the perceptive proposals that he is now making. I have no doubt that he will be made most welcome on his visits to Pembroke.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should speak for Anglesey, allow me to speak for Pembroke, and let the electors in Pembroke decide whether I deserve their support. They have so decided up till now.

Mr. Hughes: I think that we are all entitled to make observations on the general scene in Wales. I am not making a constituency speech. I am speaking as the Member for Anglesey certainly, but also as a former Secretary of State for Wales who knows the Principality well. I know the view of many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents on this issue. Indeed, he held this view himself some years ago.
The fact that reorganisation was recent is no argument for not changing it again. If it has weaknesses—it has been widely criticised in Wales I put it no higher than that— the sooner it is changed, the better. I think that there is a case for doing it now. On the other hand, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, I believe that an elected Assembly will and must have the experience and ability to tackle the job. It will be for the House of Commons to consider any recommendations and to decide what changes in local government need to be made. This final decision is not being handed over to the Assembly. It will be for us in this place to decide in due course.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House what power, if any, the Assembly will have over local government finance in Wales. For example, how will the rate support grant be fixed under the new arrangements? This is an important point which both district and county councils will be interested to know about.
I should also be grateful if the Lord President would tell us something about the University of Wales. I declare an interest as president of the University College of Wales. I know that the constituent colleges are interested to know how the university is likely to fit into the new pattern of government.
I listened with amazement to some of the speeches and interventions made during the debate on the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill yesterday. Some of them were jingoistic nonsense which I thought had died in the last century. If yesterday's debate had been televised, I think that it would have recruited many people to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. But that does not reflect the general view of all the parties in the House. All the cries about a reduction in the numbers of Scottish and Welsh Members were quite spurious. The block fund is voted by this House. Taxation which is collected in Wales and Scotland comes back here for distribution through the Treasury. Certainly whilst that situation prevails there should be no reduction in the numbers of Welsh and Scottish Members in this place. If either Assembly had a substantial power of taxation, we should be in a different position, and there would be strong arguments for

reducing the numbers of Welsh and Scottish Members.

Mr. John Mendelson: I do not think that my right hon. Friend is being quite fair with regard to yesterday's debate. Although some hon. Members are in favour of a reduction in the number of Scottish and Welsh Members, many of us have opposed any reduction in the vote. What we said, and say now, is that we fear this will become inevitable—not that we want it. We shall oppose it, but it will become inevitable if the proposed changes are introduced.

Mr. Hughes: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I do not disagree with a word of it. I am arguing that there is no case for reducing the number of Members while the purse strings are held in Whitehall and while the block fund is voted by this House.
By any standards this is a moderate and modest measure of devolution It contains less than was recommended for Wales in the Kilbrandon Report. It does not begin to threaten the unity of the United Kingdom. It will not, or need not, be expensive. Indeed, it will save money if it is followed quickly by the reorganisation of local government.
It will make for better government and for more democratic accountability in Wales for the reasons which the Secretary of State has given. I believe that those hon. Members who oppose the Bill for the sake of opposing it will be guilty of another classic blunder. I hope that they will not do so.

8.11 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: I sincerely hope that the confidence of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is soundly based. None of us on the Opposition side of the House who feel profound anxieties about this matter believe other than that the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State are sincere in their views. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, on his part, will acknowledge that persons can hold different views and be just as sincere.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber for a moment. I should like to comment on one or two points that he raised. The Secretary of State talked about the possibility of changes in local government. I hope


that the Lord President will consider this matter. I do not want to overstate but I believe that it could cause some anxiety in the minds of those employed in local government.
As I understand it, at present, posts in local government are freely interchangeable between English local authorities and Welsh local authorities. That is not entirely the case with regard to Scottish local authorities, but certainly a person who takes a job, say, with the Dyfed authority could later enlarge his experience by taking a job in Yorkshire or elsewhere. He could conceivably return to Wales later with a rich and diverse experience in a wide area of local government.
If, as was suggested, one of the first duties of the Assembly will be to reconsider the whole basis of local government, and if local government in Wales is then altered on a basis put forward by the Asembly, it seems almost inevitable that Welsh local government will differ fundamentally in form and shape from local government in England. That will sadly reduce the mobility and opportunities for some of the numerous people now employed by local authorities in the Principality. That is something which they regard with anxiety. Indeed, some of them have already expressed this point of view to me.
The other point that I wish to make relates to the referndum. I note with interest the proposal of the hon. Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans) that there should be a referendum at an eary stage.

Mr. Anderson: It would save time.

Sir R. Gower: As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) observes, it could conceivably save time. But it seems that the Government are determined to reject that advice. Certainly, the amendment to that effect has not been selected. It is a pity that we do not have an opportunity to consider this matter, but whatever is done about the referendum it is important that it should at least be contemporaneous with the Scottish referendum.
I believe that that would offer an opportunity to have a fair referendum in

Wales. I do not think that there is any chance at all of a fair referendum in Scotland, because that referendum will obviously be overshadowed by the question of oil. That may influence people's votes. But if there is a certain result in Scotland before the Welsh referendum is held, it may have a very important effect on the Welsh referendum. To have any value at all the referendum on this Bill should at the very least be contemporaneous with the one in Scotland.
Like the right hon. Member for Anglesey, the Secretary of State spoke with great confidence about this Bill. Both, apparently, have no trace of the anxieties unease and felling of confusion admitted to me by many who have considered this matter. I acknowledge that there is a degree of certainty in the minds of members of the SNP and, indeed, Plaid Cymru. I believe that the representative of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), is also certain about this matter. But there are many people in all parties who have deep anxieties. Many people simply confess that they do not know. Few of us can forecast with certainty what will be the effect of the implementation of this legislation.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey says quite definitely that this will not lead in any way to separation. I hope that he is right. But the fact remains that if we institute Assemblies of this kind they will want work to do. They will want enlarged powers. I cannot see such an Assembly, at times of difficulty, when the economy is facing particular problems at home and when there is increasing unemployment, being prepared to take the blame itself rather than blame the central Government at Westminster.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Library and looks at Hansard for 1887 and reads the report of the Committee stage of the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill he will notice a number of speeches that read exactly like the one that he is making now.

Sir R. Gower: If the dangers and anxieties that I experienced were no greater than those with regard to setting up county councils, I believe that we would be talking about a very different thing indeed.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps the question of powers should be more properly put to the Secretary of State. There seems to be an odd contrast between the Scotland Bill, where the whole question of powers is given over to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the Wales Bill, which states, in Clause 72, that
Without prejudice to any power exercisable apart from this section, the Attorney General may institute, and the Assembly may defend, proceedings for the determination of any question whether anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is within its powers.
Ought we not to go back to the question raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and establish why there should be these differences?

Sir R. Gower: I accept that there are means of exploring this question. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to do so in Committee. I hope that any timetable agreed upon tomorrow will afford us time to look at such an important matter which comes towards the end of the Bill. It should not be prohibited by such a timetable.
We are told that unless we bring government closer to the people, and unless we give the people of Wales and Scotland more direct control over their own affairs, they will seek to opt for separatism. What evidence have we of this? What evidence have we that these proposals will satisfy those who want more? The implication is that by introducing something on this modest scale we shall probably satisfy the large majority of people. I should have thought it just as likely that this would provide a vehicle for those who wish to go further than the House may be inclined to do at present.
It is also reasonable to fear that legislation of this kind will threaten the very unity of the United Kingdom, although the right hon. Member for Anglesey does not think so. I confess that at this stage it is not possible to prove either way. We cannot demonstrate that our fears in this respect are soundly based. We can only have an uneasy feeling about it, and I hope that we shall not be blamed for having that feeling.
After all, it was not inevitable that these islands should become a united kingdom. There were great differences between the people who composed these

islands. The very reasons that brought these islands together do not subsist today to keep them as one. Some of the reasons that made this a community last century no longer obtain. I believe that the break-up of the Commonwealth has in some respects lessened the cohesion of the United Kingdom. So the United Kingdom is itself an entity that we may have to fight to retain in anything like its present form.
I agree that the fears of many of us may be exaggerated, but I hope that the confidence of those who take a different view is not misplaced.
We must also have some regard to the nature of the devolution and the likely effect upon this Parliament. I cannot think about these matters without seconding or underlining what was said so capably yesterday by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I find it hard to reconcile these Assemblies with an effective United Kingdom Parliament.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey said that he could see no inconsistency in keeping this Parliament the same size as at present, even with these Assemblies, and he instanced the control over money. But I put it to him that that still comes back to the theory that has been promulgated so effectively by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The fact remains that, under these proposals, Members of the Assemblies will be able to discuss more freely matters that are not in their own constituencies, whereas Members of this House will be prohibited from doing anything similar. The English Members will be just a Parliament of Members limited to England, while Scottish and Welsh Members will have—

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of this. Any English Member is perfectly entitled to come to Welsh debates, although one seldom sees them there when the opportunity arises. Hon. Members representing English seats wanting to make a point on any matter in Wales will have the opportunity to do so when the vote of the block fund is debated on the Floor of this House. They will not be precluded.

Sir R. Gower: I do not dispute what the right hon. Gentleman says, but the


fact remains that the balance of Parliament is altered by these changes.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, it is not possible within a unitary parliamentary State to devolve widespread legislative authority to an elected Assembly. It cannot be done effectively over a long period.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: If one leaves the peculiar difficulties of Ireland out of account, the Stormont Government was not a bad concept. It worked for 50 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I prefaced that comment by saying "leaving the political situation in Ireland out of it". The right hon. Member for Down South (Mr. Powell) and his right hon. and hon. Friends would like to see that set up again. How can they object to an Assembly that is much smaller?

Sir R. Gower: The difference was one of scale. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks for a moment, he will remember that that was limited to 12 representatives from Northern Ireland, whereas in this Parliament, as he knows, we have more than 100 Members representing Scotland and Wales. It is so different in size as almost to be different in kind.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that it was not possible to have widespread devolution of this kind unless there was a design for a federal devolution. I should not go so far as to say that it is not possible, but it would be extraordinarily difficult and not easily sustained over a long period. An organisation that represents the Welsh county councils has been referred to. That body has indicated that some parts of the Bill would threaten it and lead to some of the functions now under its control being put under even more remote control.
The Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) has said, is also objectionable because it involves political and not just administrative devolution. That is one of the most obvious objections to the Bill. If it were devolution involving the whole of the United Kingdom, that would soften the association of the Bill with national differences. It would lessen that effect. I hope that the Minister can see that with this Bill the Government would be creating such a difference between Scotland

and Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom that they would be dividing the United Kingdom. If it were a general devolution, that objection would not obtain. Things would be quite different.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: Is the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) discussing the theoretical concept or announcing his adherence to the concept of devolution for the whole country?

Sir R. Gower: I do not need to do that. I tabled amendments advocating a Federal system but, unfortunately, they were not selected. However, I agreed with the Liberals on this matter before last year's Bill was debated. This is a different matter. We are considering a form of devolution that would be quite wrong for such a country as ours. For that reason I wish that the Government had waited and had introduced a system embracing the whole of the United Kingdom. That could have been done in this Parliament if the Government had set their minds to it at the beginning, and that would have had much wider support, because it would have been seen as something that would not threaten the unity of the United Kingdom. We do not know whether this Bill will do that, and we are anxious. Had the Bill presented a federal system we could have gone forward much more confidently. That is why, unfortunately, some of us will have to oppose the Bill.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: When empires fade or fall, we all know that history has shown us that, in the metropolitan homelands, with the collapse of confidence comes schism and disintegration. The sophistications wither and the visions, as wide as the far-flung boundaries of empire, shrivel. The imagination, encompassing massive areas of the world, dissipates.
Today we are witnessing—and if we are gutless we shall be participating in—the final ignominy. A Westminster which in my lifetime governed and administered perhaps no fewer than 600 million people has now become so palsied that it shrinks from governing little more than 50 million and so febrile are we required to confess ourselves and so fearful of responsibility—we who had the arrogance and the


courage to presume to administer so many hundreds of millions of diverse peoples with a handful of civil servants—that we are undermining the sovereignty of Parliament. At the same time, we are ready voluntarily to declare our readiness to place ourselves still further into the bondage of burgeoning bureaucracy.
For those of us who are Socialists, for those of us who still retain our allegiance to the Socialist view, the events of today and yesterday are a double humiliation It is a humiliation because we consciously subverted empire. We spent our political lifetimes subverting empire. The price that was being paid for the benign side effects of imperialism was, we thought, far too high to justify its essential malignancy and injustice. For the oppression of one people over many others, we sought to substitute the millenarian hope of the brotherhood of man. We spelt out in plea and in Wales in hymn and in all our propaganda our call to the workers of the world, people of all lands, to unite.
That may have been extremely naive of us, but it was a noble ideal that elevated our constant demonds for the amelioration of the appalling conditions that existed in the South Wales of our youth. It was, indeed, a may in which we elevated our self-interest to a noble ideal. It was the very cement that bound together our Welsh Labour movement and a deliberate alternative which we presented as a philosophy to the false sentiment of an aggressive patriotism that held the country together primarily to preserve its capacity to wage wars.
Now, to our shame and to the shame of all of us who are Socialists, the vacuum created as colonialism has ended is not to be filled by legislative expressions of our international philosophy. Far from it. Here in our legislature, in the Mother of Parliaments, we are making a spectacle of ourselves to the whole world that bears comparison only to a newly-created African State lapsing into tribalism. The tribalists may laugh but the Socialists do not. Maybe our Socialist hopes that we could become citizens of the world looked far too much ahead of the present potentiality of man. It seems so when we see how, hesitatingly we are prepared to become even citizens of Europe.
But are we now so lacking in conviction that we even lack the will to resist the tug of a spurious and regressive

Ethnocentricity—because there is no hon. Member who in his heart, believes that what we have in front of us today is a measure that relates purely to decentralisation, a measure that is simply a devolutionary administrative tactic? Nobody believes that. Nobody today put that view forward—and it has been put forward in the recent past with less and less conviction. Such a view, we all know, would totally lack authenticity.
We know that the Bill was conceived out of opportunism and reared in expediency. The sick dynamic behind the Bill is an ugly and intemperate nationalism. The Bill is a capitulation. It yields to the fanatical exponents of a destructive doctrine who are prepared to use every chauvinistic and parochial ploy to obtain a separate Wales in which, I have no doubt, if they ever achieved their objective, the English-speaking majority would be condemned to be strangers in their own land.
Those who dispute that view and who plead that to avoid such a grim prospect we must now make these placatory gestures to ward off demands are deceiving themselves. Have they not lived and learned through the experience of this century sufficiently to know that there can be no appeasement of nationalist parties whose ideologies are founded on dangerous fantasies and never on reality? We deserve contempt for our cowardice if, rather than fighting this irrationality with reason, we provide these nationalists with an Assembly and a stage upon which they can act out their dangerous dreams. We would be providing a theatre where, by artifice, they could seek to envelop the young and the politically immature into their dangerous racial myths.

Mr. Tom Ellis: My hon. Friend says that the Bill is spurious and expedient, but is he not aware that it reflects the views of the Welsh Council of Labour that were publicly expressed at least 13 years ago?

Mr. Abse: The views that I am ex-expressing are the views that I held when the leader of the nationalist party was a young man, a little older than I. I remember repeating these views in a debate that he and I held more than 40 years ago. They are the views that are traditional in the South Wales Labour


movement, always emphasising our repugnance of the nationalism expressed by the leader of the nationalist party and emphasing the international overtones that have always been part of the Labour movement in South Wales.
Fortunately, the people of Wales have a greater political maturity than many of those who claim to be their mentors. They are looking with increasing disdain, as every opinion poll shows, upon those who are peddling this measure and claiming that it is a response to the real needs of Wales.
In a way, the Bill is a massive provocation for Wales. While we are asking the people of Wales to exercise wage restraint, the Bill taunts them with a demand that they must pay £31,250 a year for the salaries and services for each of the 80 Assemblymen.
At a moment when thousands of steelworkers are fearing redundancy, they will see new jobs being created for thousands of extra civil servants. I do not accept the Government figure of 1,100 extra civil servants. An Assembly that depends on its annual or biannual negotiations for its funds will depend on the skill of its own civil servants to achieve its target for funds. No self-respecting Welsh Assembly would permit its civil servants to serve both Westminster and the Assembly. It will demand its own Civil Service and refuse to share it with Westminster. The figure of 1,100 is a sham. Thousands more civil servants' jobs will come into existence.
And as we taunt the steelworkers with that, what, too, do we say to the parents, from the Rhondda to the eastern valley of Monmouthshire, who are impatient to see an end to the 11-plus? They will see millions of pounds spent not on much-needed new comprehensive schools but on the adoption of and equipment for the Exchange in Cardiff. And what do we say to trade unionists protesting against the severe cuts in the social services? They will see £10 million a year being spent on the salaries and accommodation of a horde of new bureaucrats. And into the hands of the Assemblymen and their bureaucratic satraps, and contrary to the specific pledges of the original White Paper, will be delivered, of course, the fate of all the councils, and—as my hon.

Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) should recall—all the local government employees in Wales too. Of course, it cannot be doubted that the Assembly will devour the councils of Wales.
The equivocations which were the response to my earlier intervention by the Secretary of State for Wales, in which he gave no clear answer as to whether, when the clause said that the Assembly should review the structure of local government, the functions should be reviewed, were once again revealing that the anxieties which have been expressed by the county councils and by all our local authorities are well founded. A promise was made at the beginning that this Bill would have nothing to do with local government. It ends the day by handing over to an untried, untested Assembly, inevitably hungry for power and for more and more functions, the penultimate decision on how in fact local government should be formed.
If it were said that local government was perfect, we would be very foolish. It it were said that we need consideration as to how we ought to reorganise local government, there would be nobody who would doubt the necessity. But a review of local government functions and local government structure by an interested party—not by an independent commission—is an insult to every local councillor throughout the whole of the Principality. I am not surprised, since they are politically sophisticated men—as, happily, we have in Wales—that the protests from members of the councils are rising, because they realise that they are being subjected to a massive confidence trick, that they were misled at the beginning, and that an attempt is being made to mislead them again.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Abse: I have given way once. I shall not give way again.
I say that authority will be wrested from our elected councils, and it will be wrested to an untried Assembly. It will also be wrested to the Welsh-speaking bureaucratic elite who will be the Praetorian Guard of those Assemblymen.
Let there be no doubt at all about it. Wales has rumbled to the fact that the Members—not all in the nationalist party


—will exercise their undoubted right to speak in Welsh inside the proposed Assembly.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Why not?

Mr. Abse: The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) asks "Why not? Of course, "Why not?" If one creates a Welsh Assembly, that is a right which they must have and which they have a right to exercise. But if they exercise that right, of course, one has to have officials who understand what they are saying. If they continue to exercise their right in every way in which they deal with every official—and they will so exercise it, knowing in particular their fanaticism about the language—then will be a precondition for entry into the Welsh Civil Service that one will need to be able to speak Welsh. The men and women from Gwent, from Cardiff and from the bulk of Glamorgan will find that they have no rôle to play in this Assembly and in the framing of powers which the Assembly will be exercising.
The Assembly will find that it can devour the local authorities and take over their rôle. More, no longer will the elected Members for Welsh constituencies be able to intervene effectively on their constituents' behalf over a wide range of issues such as housing, roads, education, health and personal social services. By relegating all these matters to the Assembly that great defender of Parliament, the Lord President, is seeking to ensure that the Welsh Members will become political eunuchs.
For the same salary as our colleagues representing English constituencies, we shall be required to do half the work. We shall be able to determine the fate of all the constituencies represented by our English colleagues but they will not be able to determine any matters in our constituencies, and nor shall we. We shall be excluded too. Our rôle will be impoverished. That intimate link between a Member and his constituency, which is so meaningful, will have gone. We shall be undermining respect and regard for the House of Commons. It will speedily be known in our Wales that our rôle is insignificant.
On the very maters which will impinge most upon their deaily lives, we shall be unable to intervene on behalf of our

constituents. We shall become miserable creatures in this House. That is not a state of affairs that could last for long. It could not. It is not something that a Welsh Member of Parliament would desire. It is an intolerable situation. When we vote on this Bill it will not be, as the Whips whisper, necessary for us to vote for it to obtain another Labour Government. On the contrary, together with the Scotland Bill it almost guarantees the end of future Labour Governments because it is the voice of radicalism in Scotland and Wales which has enabled us over the years to have our Labour Governments. The number of Scots and Welsh Members in the Commons will be drastically reduced.
Let no hon. Member representing an English constituency think that for some short-term gain, some momentary opportunism, he is not putting at risk the possibility of our having a permanent anti-Labour Government in this House. When I have to look to my loyalties, as some hon. Members present tonight looked to their loyalties yesterday, I prefer to recognise that there are many loyalties which we have from the moment that we enter this House. I have my loyalties to my Labour constituents, to my electorate, to my Parliamentary Labour Party, to my constituency party, and to the nation, and my loyalty to my conscience and self-respect.
These are competing loyalties with which we all have to live from the moment we come to this House. I prefer to eschew the public agonies which we endured yesterday and to retain the dignity of deciding how to resolve those conflicting loyalties in private. Having made up my mind—I did so a long time ago—I stick to my decision. I know that I was not elected to sabotage the prospects of future Labour Governments. I was not elected to help liquidate the United Kingdom or to break up the unity of the British Labour movement, and I was certainly not elected to demean Wales into a parish pump. For all these reasons, when the Question is put tonight I shall vote against the Bill.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: For generations the more radical British parties promised Wales a measure of self-government. These parties, of course, do not include the Conservative Party, which


has put its John Bull-ish bulk between the people of Wales and any measure of control over any aspect of their national life. The Conservatives even summoned all their vigour and virulence to oppose self-government for the Episcopal Church in Wales. Fortunately for that Church they failed, and their failure then to prevent its disestablishment has proved most beneficial to the Chuch, as Conservatives themselves now admit.
It is little wonder, then, that the Archbishop of Wales has just put his name to a report to the British Council of Churches, entitled "Devolution and the British Churches", which declares that the Assembly of the British Council of Churches
recognises the need for devolution legislation to meet the special needs of Scotland and Wales
and
calls upon Christian people in Scotland and Wales to take full part in the operation of the Assemblies.
There is a group in the Conservative Party, as we have heard tonight, which favours a federal system for Britain. One can only wish that it had put its evidence to the Kilbrandon Commission. But the party as a party has failed enthusiastically to support any measure of power for the people of Wales, although it has enthusiastically supported the transfer of power from this House and Parliament to the bureaucrats in Brussels.
As a party, the Conservatives still deploy the old anti-disestablishment arguments against the very mild measure of control which the Government now propose to give the Welsh people over the bureaucracy which is so firmly in the saddle and which is riding Wales today. Conservatives still live emotionally in the nineteenth century, and as a party they have not yet come to terms with the fact that the British Empire has gone. They are still a party of British Imperial nationalists—a breed, as we have just heard, not confined to one party.
One is not surprised that Mr. Paul Johnson, the erstwhile editor of the New Statesman, made his Conservatism explicit by joining the party. He commends the declaration made by Thomas Cromwell, who was responsible for the measure incorporating Wales in England

in 1536, that "This Realm is an Empire". That is the view still of the Conservative Party, the party which at its Welsh conference this year sang "Land of Hope and Glory"—
Wider still and wider may thy bounds be set;
God who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet.
That was their song in Wales this year. One can see them sending the gunboats up the Towy and the Taff to quell the rebellious natives.
Whatever kind of freedom Conservatives believe in, it is certainly not freedom for Wales. It is not freedom for Welshmen to control their own national life. Their policy over recent centuries has been one of naked assimilation—assimilation of our nation in that of England and an attack upon the national identity of the Welsh people. Some Conservatives may now make noises which suggest that they recognise the existence of a Welsh nation, but they are determined that that nation shall not act as a nation.
The Liberal background is quite different. Liberals have a history of sympathy with nations rightly struggling to be free. Indeed, at the end of the last century the Liberal nationalist movement in Wales was strong enough to compel the Prime Minister of the day in 1895 to come to Cardiff to declare himself in favour of a Parliament for Wales. That was 82 years ago, and we are still told not to rush the matter. In the absence of an independent national party in those days. there was no way of compelling the Government to honour their commitment.
For a long part of its history, for decades after Keir Hardie's day, Labour stood for Welsh freedom. Its attitude in 1918 was summarised in a powerful statement by the Secretary of the party, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and put out by Transport House. He said:
The Labour Party is pledged to the widest and most generous measure of home rule that can be devised. … We regard the claims of Wales to self-government on these lines as strictly analagous to those of Ireland",
and he gave two reasons. These were:
1. The House of Commons is incapable of dealing with the urgent public business it is required to handle.
2. Local legislation on the federal plan will help very materially to deepen and strengthen


the national spirit in each of these self-governing communities. Nationalism means the vigorous development of the material and moral resources of the whole people.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: There are certain similarities in the statement by Arthur Henderson which the hon. Gentleman has just read, and his own philosophy, but there is one difference. Arthur Henderson, in espousing separatism, nationalism and what he called freedom of nationhood, would have voted against the Government's proposals for devolution. I understand that the hon. Gentleman, as a means of securing his own ends, or attempting to do so, by a more devious route, will vote for these proposals.

Mr. Evans: wonder how the hon. Gentleman interprets the late Arthur Henderson's mind on this matter. I imagine that he would do what we are doing—see the measure as a step forward towards federalism, if that was his aim.
Arthur Henderson went on to say:
It is hardly possible to conceive an area in which a scheme of parliamentary self-government could be established with better chances of success than Wales. All the problems that embarrass statesmen and challenge the imagination of reformers are seen in Wales reduced to manageable proportions. … Given self-government Wales might establish itself as a modern Utopia and develop its own institutions, its own culture, its own ideas of democracy in politics, industry and social life, as an example and an iinspiration to the rest of the world.
That was the statement put out by the Secretary of the British Labour Party and by Transport House, and I think that his assessment was right.
In 1928, 10 years later, "Labour and the Nation", a statement of official policy, said:
Believing as it does in the value of local initiative and patriotism, the Labour Party would support the creation of separate legislative assemblies in Scotland and Wales.
In 1939 Clement Attlee said:
The Labour Party has never departed from its policy of complete autonomy for Wales.
That policy was not dropped before 1945. By then, unfortunately, the centralism of the Webbs had captured the party completely. They became even more centralist than present Conservative policy, and wrote a volume extolling the virtues of Russian centralism. As with the Liberals, no effort was made by either of

the pre-war Labour Governments to fulfil their Welsh policy. The Labour Party had become a British nationalist party, unconcerned for the national life of Wales, and increasingly assimilationist. There are some Labour Members who are still resolved that Wales should not have what one right hon. Gentleman yesterday called the "highly privileged position" that he thought the measure would give Wales.
Recently, Labour has recovered some part of its former vision—or was it just a vote-catching policy? It is right to note that the Labour Party in Wales published a brochure, for which Jim Griffiths wrote the foreword, putting its case for an elected Welsh Council a decade before Labour's conversion in Scotland. But the British party remained unmoved until the nationalist threat gathered power.
In 1976, support for the Government's slight measure came from the Wales TUC, which rightly wanted more economic and legislative power. Since then, the British TUC and the Labour Party Conference have given their support. Now the unemployment situation in Wales provides over 90,000 other good reasons for giving the Welsh the tools to do a good job there.
If there is any doubt at all about Labour's current intentions, they have been fostered by its attitude to the Kilbrandon Commission's report and by the way the Government allowed the Scotland and Wales Bill to founder. We await, not with too much confidence, to see whether they are capable of keeping their word this time. The powers which are proposed in this Bill are far from matching the needs of Wales and are equally far from matching the rights of a nation.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Speaking of the needs of Wales, the hon. Gentleman quite rightly mentioned the 90,000 unemployed. Will he say how the Bill will help in the solution of that problem?

Mr. Evans: One way in which I hope it would help very materially is that one of the first actions of a Welsh Assembly would be to devise an economic plan for Wales to ensure the proper way of developing Wales as a balanced economy. Unfortunately, the Government have not kept what was a pledge to include economic powers in a measure of this kind.


But the Bill is a step in the right direction, and if the Welsh people do not want to go any further nobody can compel them to go any further, although the nationalists will do their best to persuade them, of course.
The important thing is to trust the people. Most of the people with whom this measure is concerned are proud to be Welsh, proud of their identity, proud of their nationhood and proud of their national traditions, in defence of which they have a long record of self-sacrificing struggle.
It is for freedom that the Welshman fights, it is for freedom that he sees it sweet to lay down his life.
So wrote Giraldus Cambrensis eight centuries ago.
It is Wales' total lack of freedom today which explains its parlous situation. The Welsh are totally unfree today. They are dominated now by a State which is not theirs. The British State is not ours.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Gentleman keeps repeating the nonsense that there is a total lack of freedom in Wales. The people who represent Wales in this Parliament are elected by all the people in Wales. Why, then, does he say that they are denied freedom? If the people of Wales wish, they could all vote for nationalist candidates. As the hon. Gentleman knows and as I shall be telling him later, in the 36 Welsh constituencies 27 nationalist deposits were lost. That was the people of Wales exercising their freedom.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: There is one occasion which I recall very vividly in this place, and that was a debate on the fate of a valley in Merioneth. Liverpool wanted to drown the valley and take the water from that district. Every Welsh Member who voted, except one, voted against the measure, yet the measure was carried overwhelmingly.

Mr. Ioan Evans: rose—

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I have already given way once.
What freedom can the people of Wales be said to have in those circumstances? They are certainly dominated by the State, and the State does not serve Wales. It is England's State, and England is not

Wales. Although this measure is a far cry from national freedom for Wales, it could help her to live and I believe that it could help to strengthen the tradition which has such an amazingly long and continuous history in Wales.
The division on this issue is the division between those who are for Wales and those who are against Wales. It will not place Wales amongst the free nations of Europe, but it will give her power. It will take her more in the direction of the federal Länder of West Germany, whose prosperity is due in great part to its decentralised order. It does not approach the powers of the Swiss cantons but gets closer to those which will be enjoyed in Catalonia, and soon by the Basques, for Wales is a part of a much wider movement towards self-government among submerged nations in Europe which include the Bretons and Basques, the Catalans and Corsicans. Jean-Paul Sartre's statement that the French are a mass but the Bretons are a people applies to all these people in their various situations, including the Welsh. No country in Europe has greater potential than Wales has. It is as great today as it was in Arthur Henderson's day.
The present system of government is responsible for the near collapse, which could prove final, of a magnificent culture that has been transmitted over the centuries—even over the millennia—by a splendid language. Mainly because of Government action or inaction, the language is dying. It will not be a natural death. Languages do not die natural deaths. They are killed, and the Welsh language today is being killed. The Government cannot escape the charge of linguistic homicide.
The importance of a language to the quality of life of the people in Wales today and to future generations is beyond measure. Language is never neutral. The English language has been used quite ruthlessly for centuries as the most powerful weapon of Governments to assimilate Wales, to make the Welsh English. That strikes at the heart of Wales. Although most of our time has of necessity been given to economics, which are so much bound up with social justice, and to politics, to which economics should always be subordinate,


most basically be struggle in Wales, as in the colonial countries, has been for its cultural identity. Culture and community are the foundations upon which the Welsh nationalist movement is built.

Mr. Anderson: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that the Welsh Assembly will be less sympathetic to the language than the current Government, given the composition of the Assembly?

Mr. Evans: All these considerations have passed through our minds. However, we are aware of the situation in Wales. The country is becoming more aware of its national identity. I am sure that that process will continue. The committed Welshman finds the vulnerability of his nation heartbreaking. He finds the cold unconcern of successive English Governments to be arrogant and intolerable. That is shown in their attitude towards television in Wales, which is doing more than anything else to destroy the language of the country.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I can hardly believe that the hon. Gentleman is being serious when he talks about the arrogance of English Governments. It is rubbish and nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. What is special about the Welsh as against the English, the Scots, the French, the Irish or anyone else? Every country has its own peculiarities. Every country has its own language and its own culture, which it cherishes. Why should the Welsh be so special and above and beyond any other nationality? That is what the hon. Gentleman is preaching. He is suggesting that any other nation is inferior to Wales.

Mr. Evans: I am saying that Wales is a nation with its own culture, its own civilisation, its own history and its own identity.

Mr. Heffer: Of course.

Mr. Evans: All those things are important to the individual Welshman. Wales should be allowed to live as Wales. It should be allowed to live its own life in its own way under its own institutions. I regard the hon. Gentleman as a British nationalist. He has great company in the House. The cultural and psychic injury that English domination has done Wales is immeasurable.
Much of the evil is due to depopulation and migration. They have been the consequences of unemployment, which has been a vicious feature of Welsh life for the past two generations.

Mr. Heffer: What about Liverpool?

Mr. Evans: Nine of the 13 old counties of Wales have smaller populations than a century ago whereas every one of the 18 counties of Norway has an increased population. There are increased populations stretching up to the Arctic Circle. The answer seems obvious to nationalists—namely, that Norway has its own Government, who have developed an adequate infrastructure and a balanced economy, whereas the Welsh infrastructure, including the roads, railways, ports and houses, has been allowed to lag far behind that even of England, in a crippling way. Whereas England has, for example, 2,000 miles of electrified railway, Wales has none. Norway has 58 per cent. of its railways electrified. Wales has not a single mile.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Would the hon. Gentleman care to make a comparison with Eire in these matters?

Mr. Evans: Eire began under enormous difficulties. Fortunately, in Wales we never saw a famine which destroyed a million people and led to emigration by the million to the United States and other countries. We have been fortunate in comparison.

Mr. Leon Brittan: The point made my my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) was not the state of Ireland before independence but the progress that Ireland has made since. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the progress of Ireland since independence has been greater and better than that of Wales under the present arrangements?

Mr. Evans: Wales began with many advantages. She was one of the richest countries in the world, whereas Ireland was one of the poorest. Yet the gross per capita value of Ireland is approaching that of the United Kingdom and, as things are going, will overtake it in the next few years.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does the hon. Gentleman know that three years ago, for the


first time since records were kept, there was net migration into Ireland?

Mr. Evans: I think that the story of Wales, for all her history of emigration and depopulation, would have been quite different if we had had the kind of Government that Arthur Henderson wanted for Wales. Today we are governed by a centralised system of the British Parliament, of which the Sunday Times wrote last year:
Parliament manufactures laws all the time without scrutiny and without scruple. More than 2,000 statutory instruments a year supplement debated legislation. … No amount of procedural reform would enable Parliament to sieve and check and ventilate grievances.
That describes the situation. Our countries are controlled by bureaucrats and not by this Parliament. The House may recall that the last issue of the Economist took a similar line to the Sunday Times.
Yet the only alternative offered by those who oppose this measure of devolution is still more procedural reform, still more bureaucracy, still more strength for the Welsh Office and still more bureaucrats in the Welsh Office. They speak of bureaucrats attached to the Welsh Assembly but they do not speak of the bureaucrats in the Welsh Office, of whom they want to see more.
We think as nationalists, but we want parliamentary democracy, and that lies, even in England, through the decentralisation of power. This is not the time to deal with the Bill in detail. Despite its weaknesses it has its advantages in that it would give the people of Wales more control over local government, health, social services, education and development. These at least could be ordered on a human scale providing the beginnings, at any rate, of a participating Welsh democracy which could prepare the kind of development plan I have referred to and start the much-needed modernisation of our political and economic system. Most important, it would give Wales a voice which would be heard clearly in London and also in overseas countries, giving Wales worldwide advertisement which would doubtless attract industry which would not otherwise come to our country. It would increase the Welsh sense of self-confidence and release new energies, with a consequent greater degree of self-help in Wales.
We will try to improve the Bill. For those reasons, however, despite its shortcomings, we shall give it our support. The embers of Welsh nationality had for long been dampened, but they had never been extinguished. In recent years we have seen the breeze blow on them, and they are now leaping into flame—the flame of vigorous nationhood. The House must accept that fact. The flame will never be put out. If Wales is once again betrayed, that flame will become a blaze.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I should like to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) who made an interesting speech. I want to follow the philosophical and theoretical points that he made as a Socialist. I wish to emphasise a fact that is of importance. It is the basic reason behind this and the Scotland Bill. It is the "only begetter" and the raison d'être of the Bill. The fact is that Wales is a nation.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the people of Northern Ireland did not believe that they belonged to a separate nation. I assume that he meant that they regarded themselves as English. The right hon. Gentleman knows more about Northern Ireland than I do, but his statement surprised me. I believe that behind all the difficulties in Northern Ireland there is an ethnic issue. We have barely begun to scratch the surface of the psychology of the ethnic group. That is one of the great lacunas in the Marxist philosophy. It is important that we appreciate that Wales is a nation.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool said at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party that to him as a Socialist a coal miner in Senghenydd was exactly the same as a coal miner in St. Helens or Timbuktu, I told him that if he had said that to me 30 years ago when I was down a coal mine in Wales working my guts out I should have told him that he was talking through his hat. I am not the same. I am no better and no worse than an English coal miner, but I am different. My hon. Friend talked of the "evil of ethnocentricity." It is not an evil, nor is it a virtue. It is a fact, One cannot be human without a sense of nationhood. One has to have a sense of history, a sense of the past to support


one, otherwise one would be merely a member of a species, like a tiger or an elephant.

Mr. Abse: I believe that the race to which I belong is the human race. Gwent has the second largest population in Wales. The majority of its people are drawn from all corners of the British Isles and their inheritance comes from all corners. Will my hon. Friend explain their ethnic group to them?

Mr. Ellis: This Bill does not deal with devolution for the county of Gwent. There are libraries full of books on nationhood. It is difficult to define, but it exists. That is the short answer to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend referred to what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said about the people in Wales having things in common with people outside Wales. He seemed to resent that. Does my hon. Friend not recognise that Welsh miners would say that they have more in common with Scottish, Yorkshire, and other miners than they have with Welsh property speculators and asset strippers? They do not regard themselves in a narrow nationalist sense.

Mr. Ellis: I am coming to that. I was a Welsh coal miner, and I had a lot in common with an English coal miner. I once drew a horse in a raffle. I asked the fellow who sold me the ticket "Is it a good horse?" and he replied "Yes, it's got four legs." It was a horse. Clearly a Welsh coal miner has a lot in common with an English coal miner.
I am obviously ruffling a few feathers. I was making the point that one cannot be human without having a sense of nationhood. This brings me to the question of the Socialist theory of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, who spoke about the need for workers of the world uniting, the, end of Empire, and so on. I still agree with the slogan "Workers of the world unite", but my hon. Friend must accept that the Socialist theories of 50 years ago have long since become outmoded. One has only to read the more recent and more advanced Socialist theories of such people as Sartre, Lefèbvre, Guy Heraud, Yves Person and Tom Nairn to realise that. It is significant

that all of them, the avant garde of Socialist theoreticians, are writing in unitary State.
Those writers have demonstrated today that to a large extent Socialist theory myth and plain acceptance of a great deal of capitalist prejudice. The Socialist theory of my hon. Friend is based on the concept of la grande nation, the idea of separate individuals making a contract to form an abstract State, the grande nation of Rousseau, as compared with the more organic nation of Herder that grows organically, with its own language, customs, traditions and so on. The grande nation concept, which Socialists swallowed hook, line and sinker, has clearly been outmoded and has been shown to be very far short of coming anywhere near a Socialist solution to the problems of the world.
This kind of mechanistic philosophy is precisely the philosophy of capitalism, that all that matters is production. Some Socialists have said "To alleviate our consciences, we shall talk not so much about production but about distribution." But today even Socialists in this country, who are 50 years behind the times in Socialist thinking—I refer more particularly to the left wing of the Labour Party—say that distribution does not matter much more than production. It is in this sense that when my hon. Friend talked about the Bill's being anti-Socialist he was clearly up a gum tree. The great lacuna in Marxist thought is the complete failure to recognise the nation in the sense of nationhood.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend must surely know that one of the biggest arguments about Socialist theory over the years has been on the quesiton of self-determination of nations. For example, Rosa Luxembourg was totally opposed to any concept of the nation, but Lenin argued—there was a great polemic about this—for self-determination and nationhood. Joseph Stalin wrote an entire book about nationality. Therefore, if anyone is out of date, I do not know who it is, because the argument about self-determination, about nationhood, has been going on in the Socialist movement ever since it was formed. There have always been two basic arguments. I happen to be on one side and my hon. Friend is


apparently on the other, but it is not a new argument.

Mr. Ellis: I accept every word that my hon. Friend says. However, I was responding to some theories that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool had advanced, and specifically answering his points. At a later date I may enter into a long discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpol, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but his point gives me an opportunity to demonstrate something closely connected with the Bill and with this House.
This Bill presents the House with problems. However, they are by no means as great as the problems posed in the Scotland Bill. The problems presented in the Wales Bill are not insuperable. I think that they are readily soluble. However, there are problems.
I have a great deal of respect for this House—the Mother of Parliaments—but that respect falls short of idolatory, because this Parliament has many imperfections. One has only to read the leading article in last week's Economist to see it spelled out. I advise any hon. Members who have not read the article to read it. I often get the feeling that many hon. Members regard anything that goes on here as being perfect. The late Herbert Morrison said that Socialism was what the Labour Party did. In a sense, hon. Members seem to think that parliamentary democracy is what this House does.
There are many imperfections, and I want to mention only one in relation to the Bill. This House, in a national sense, is not homogeneous. All kinds of problems arise from that fact.
The right hon. Member for Down, South yesterday said that we had a unitary parliamentary State. We have had a unitary parliamentary State for a very long time, but the State is now clearly crumbling at the edges for some obvious reasons. They are not the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. They are reasons connected with a change from the hierarchically structured society, with people at the top having power and issuing orders to a laterally structured society where Jack is as good as his master. In the laterally structured society, every man wants to

have his say and his rights, and no more than his rights. It is in the sense of this House being made up of a minority and a majority group—that is, a minority of one nation and a majority of another nation—that the problems arise.
I am not advocating that we should seek perfection. Politics is a practical job. We have to get on with it in a practical way. I want to illustrate what I mean when I say that this House has imperfections.
I was born in Wales. My mother and father and my grandparents were born in Wales. As far as I know, I am what might be called the true, genuine, Welsh aboriginal. Yet, when I come here, I am not allowed by the rules of the House to speak in my mother tongue. From the point of view of Socialism and equality, there is something fundamentally un-socialist and unequal about it.
Mention has been made of the situation in Ireland. A fortnight ago I had the pleasure and privilege of going to the Dail—the Irish equivalent of this Chamber. I think that it has 147 Members. I was intrigued to see the interpreters' booth. A proportion of people in Ireland speak Gaelic. The proportion is less than the number of people in Britain who speak Welsh. I understand that three or four Members of the Dail habitually speak in Gaelic, and there is a translation facility.
I am not making the point that, for some perverse reason or reasons of malice, this House has been anti-Welsh language. It has come about because, under the structure as it has developed in the last 200 years, it did not enter anybody's head that anyone would want to speak Welsh in an English Parliament. The Welsh language was regarded as a whim—a language that only odd characters like myself might wish to speak. I am not making an attack on the House as such. The point is that this is one of the imperfections in the structure of the House which is increasingly coming to light.
When the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) announced the publication of the Kilbrandon Report, I and my Welsh and some Scottish colleagues were agog in our seats. What was the reaction in the House by the 500 or so English Members? It was either a big


yawn or jokes about Home Rule for Yorkshire. I was amazed at the insensitivity of professional politicians, who are supposed to know what is going on. They were oblivious to the fact that they were sitting on a time bomb. They regarded it as a matter of Home Rule for Yorkshire or a big yawn about some crackpot idea that a Royal Commission had brought forward.
Another example, which has been mentioned on a number of occasions, is the Scottish Grant Committee. The mere existence of that Committee in a sense demonstrates the imperfections of this House. It had to be set up as some kind of stop-gap. Just like the Welsh Grand Committee, it was an arrangement to cater for the problems which increasingly came to the fore. The only reason why the Welsh Grand Committee was set up was in response to the need for the people of Wales to have their say. That again illustrates the imperfections of this House.
I could go on talking about other imperfections. Some hon. Members object to the number of Scottish and Welsh Members that are proposed. They argue that they will be able to vote on matters which, in Scotland, English Members will not be able to vote upon. In theory that is a very fundamental problem.
I was struck by the way in which the right hon. Member for Down, South spoke about a theorem—but politics is not a theorem. Politics is about life, and it has all the imperfections of life. The 500 English Members will not give in to the 30 Welsh Members or the 70 Scottish Members. The 500 will outvote the 100 any day.
This argument has not been produced because of any inherent practical objection; it has been produced because of prejudice and the search for any argument that can be put forward to try to deny this Bill.
This is the sort of Bill that is slowly edging us into the twenty-first century. We have had slogans about bringing us kicking and squealing into the twenty-

first century. I sometimes believe that the House of Commons is the last place in the world which could be taken kicking and squealing anywhere. It is high time that we did things which made it kick and squeal, and I am happy that as a result of this Bill the House of Commons is beginning to kick and squeal.
I have many more things to say, but I shall not take up any more time. I have attempted to try to explain my view to some of my hon. Friends who feel that in some way the Bill is an anti-Socialist measure. I exclude my hon. Friend the Member for Walton because I have not heard his views as a Socialist with regard to this Bill. But there are others, like my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, who have expressed views which I think are the antithesis of contemporary Socialism. Times have changed. This is 1977, not 1922. It is as simple as that.
I hope I do not sound presumptuous when I say that my hon. Friend should read the advanced thought of people such as Person, Heraud, Le Fèbvre and Nairn so that he may appreciate that in a very profound sense this Bill is in the front of Socialist thought.
It was not for nothing that Sartre said that the new Left is in the regions. It is not for nothing that, speaking in the context of the Basques, he said:
To speak an oppressed language is to attack capitalism at its softest spot.
That should persuade my hon. Friends that this Bill is a very mild measure. It will set up a glorified county council. But I believe that in the best possible way it will grow naturally and evolve. I do not believe that we can produce out of thin air a big theoretical structure like the Industrial Relations Act. No man is clever enough to produce an industrial relations Act out of his head. However, the Assembly that is set up under this Bill will grow organically and will evolve. That is why I commend the Bill wholeheartedly to the House, and I hope that it will have a thumping big majority tonight.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: As a staunch devolutionist, I feel it an honour and privilege to be here representing Ceredigion on this historic occasion, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Wales has had the privilege, he being a Cardiganshire man, to present the Wales Bill to Parliament.
I have listened with interest to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I have come to the conclusion that one is either in favour of devolving power to the people of Wales or one is not. I was delighted to listen to the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and to hear that he was in favour of devolving power to the Welsh nation. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) say that he was in favour of it, as was the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) and others. But I was sorry to learn that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and a few others on the Conservative Benches were not in favour of devolving power to the people of Wales.
Although I have some reservations about the new Wales Bill, the Government have over the past few months, moved some way towards Liberal demands. I feel, therefore, that the Bill deserves support as a positive step forward towards self-government in Wales and an improvement in the government of our country.
In about four or five hours, it will be interesting to see the percentage of Welsh Members of Parliament who support the Bill. I believe that more than two-thirds of them will do so and that the figure may be even higher. It may be that the hon. Member for Wrexham has persuaded his hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans) to vote for the Bill. Time will tell.
Liberals have always advocated devolution within a federal system. We believe that to be the best way to deal with the problems of government. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Pembroke and the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) say that they were in favour of a federal system. The day may dawn yet when we have a federal system of government.
We Liberals also believe that the Welsh Assembly should be given powers equivalent to those given to the Scottish Assembly. There is no mention in the Bill of proportional representation. It is a great pity that the Government of the day have not acceded to our request, because there is a need to change our electoral system.
It is my intention tonight not to go into detail on specific issues but rather to stress that in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill we are supporting the general principle of devolution and seeing the Bill as a necessary starting point.
However, as I have said so many times, if devolution is to succeed we must have parity between the people of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. It may be that some of those hon. Members who are not in favour of devolving power to the people of Wales and Scotland believe that we are not capable of running our own affairs. In my view, however, we have the ability and the men and women who can govern Wales from within as well as we are at present doing at Westminster.
As a Welsh Liberal Member of Parliament, I have always maintained that one of my duties is to do what I can to aid the preservation of all that is precious in Welsh life, its culture and its traditions while encouraging investment in our established industries and bringing new industries to areas where there is unemployment so that the community may thrive.
I have lived in Wales all my life, as has my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). Over the past decade or more we have seen local people leaving Mid-Wales, many of them to go to Liverpool, Birmingham and London, never to return. The steps that we are about to make of devolving power to the people of Wales and to bodies already established in Mid-Wales will help to stop young people leaving the area to which we so proudly belong.

Mr. Fred Evans: Will the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) tell us just how that will stop the migration of young people? Has not migration


some small thing to do with employment and other such factors? If the hon. Member thinks that a Welsh Assembly will wave a magic wand and keep young people rooted where they are, he is sadly wrong. In any case, is not the richness and diversity of life in this country due to the leavening of Celtic with Anglo-Saxon? Do we want to separate the elements that have made this country so rich in its total culture?

Mr. Howells: With due respect to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans), perhaps he does not understand our problems in Mid-Wales, because for generations young people have left the area not to return. The Welsh Assembly will have the will to encourage the people of Mid-Wales to stay in the area and may have a plan, perhaps within the concept of the Rural Development Board for Wales, to make sure that we retain the services of young people, and uphold the traditions of our part of the world. I hope that the Government will have the answer when they set up the Welsh Parliament.
I am convinced that the only way that depopulation can be stopped is by devolving power to a Welsh Parliament and by bringing government closer to the people of Wales—a Government who know and understand Welsh problems and need the direct participation and active involvement of the Welsh, and who should enable us to solve our problems and to survive economically and culturally.
I agree entirely with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Wrexham that language is extremely important. I hope that the senators or Assemblymen who will be elected to represent Welsh areas will have an opportunity to discuss matters and to speak in their own language, which is Welsh, once the Assembly has been set up. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on that tonight.
I strongly doubt whether commuters in the South-East of England have any idea of the problems of the Rhondda Valley. Why should they? What do Midlanders know of the difficulties of North Wales hill farmers? Why should they? With our own Parliament and with Members representing only the Welsh electorate, there will be opportunities to

discuss the particular issues of our country that affect us and us alone.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate what the hill farmers of Cardiganshire know about the problems of industrial Cardiff?

Mr. Howells: They do not know anything, but once there is a Welsh Parliament it will be much easier for people such as farmers in Mid-Wales to understand the problems of those in Cardiff.

Mr. Dalyell: Once Welsh farmers understand the problems of Cardiff, what will they do about them?

Mr. Howells: We shall try to solve them, and perhaps we shall be able to do a better job than is being done in this place. Westminster is overburdened and tends towards inefficiency. It can give little time to matters of vital importance to Wales. When were Welsh affairs last debated in this Chamber? The people of Wales deserve better than that from their elected representatives.
One argument which has been put forward against devolution is that our present system, with the United Kingdom Parliament, is the best in the world and that our method of government is among the most efficient. People ask why we should change it now. But this excellence was achieved only through gradual development over the centuries with a system that adapted itself to what was required. Parliament can no longer cope with the tremendous amount of legislation and discussion that is expected of it. As a result, Welsh problems are continually pushed aside so that Westminster can deal with the bigger national or British issues.

Sir Raymond Gower: How can the hon. Gentleman justify saying that Parliament is so heavily engaged when, if the Bill falls, there will be hardly any legislative programme for this Session?

Mr. Howells: Let me put the hon. Gentleman's mind at ease. We shall win the vote on Second Reading so that the people of Wales will be able to vote in a referendum for an Assembly. The hon. Gentleman need not worry.
A little over 20 years ago, there were those who said that there was no need for a Welsh Office or a Secretary of State


for Wales. Their arguments have been disproved and the Secretary of State's duties have extended to cover a vast amount of Welsh public life since then.
We have been devolving power to the people of Wales for the past 20 years. We have a Welsh Water Authority, the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and other authorities. A Welsh Assembly is a logical development of all this. Will any hon. Member say that we should abolish the role of the Secretary of State for Wales? No—yet 20 years ago people fought hard against such ministerial responsibility. Power vested in the Welsh electorate is needed to deal with the many non-elected bodies that abound.
I believe that in the past three years the Government have taken the right steps in the right direction to try to solve the unemployment problem in Wales, and in the past few months the Development Board for Rural Wales has done a great deal of good in Mid-Wales by giving help to small industries and trying to solve our social problems in many ways.
Provision has been made in the Bill to ensure that the people of Wales will have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want to take this exciting step towards greater democracy. That disposes immediately of the argument that the Assembly has been foisted upon Wales against the will of the people. Hon. Members who vote against Second Reading will be denying the Welsh people their right to choose. I urge every hon. Member to think seriously in the next two or three hours and not to deny the people of Wales the right to decide for themselves whether they want a Welsh Parliament.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and many other Conservatives were the loudest in calling for a referendum on this issue, yet they are the very people who will try to kill the Bill?

Mr. Howells: The hon. Member for Pembroke and the other opponents of devolution will not kill the Bill. There is no need for the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to worry. We shall carry the Bill through.
Wales can make an important contribution to Britain. We shall still be as much part of Britain as before. We cannot possibly become economically independent, but to play our part to the full we must realise our potential by tackling the problems at source. Only then can we make our proper contribution to Britain, Europe and the world. This can be done only when we have our own Assembly, with its Members elected by the people of Wales, dealing with Welsh affairs.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I shall not follow up the points made by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) at great length, but I hope that neither he nor anyone else in the House will lead people in Wales to think that if we have an Assembly that body will solve the basic problems that face Wales and the rest of the country.
Earlier this evening we were told that the Welsh Assembly was not even a tier of government. That is how it has been described. It has been said that it is just a movement of functions.

Mr. John Morris: I have made the point repeatedly that we are not creating an additional tier of government. I say that for the umpteenth time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand simple English. What is claimed as an extra tier of government is already there. One is transferring functions and not creating an additional tier. My hon. Friend must not put words into my mouth.

Mr. Evans: What I am saying is that it is not an additional tier of government.

Mr. John Morris: That was not what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Evans: The point that I am making is that we have got this Welsh Assembly there, and my right hon. and learned Friend is saying that we are transferring functions which are now performed by this House of Commons. The problems that are facing the people of Wales are those of living standards, of unemployment and of numerous other issues. Those are the issues which are really concerning the people at the moment, and there is not a great expectation that if the Assembly is created it will solve all the problems that concern them.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) has left the Chamber, because, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) did not take up the points he had made. We should not allow this debate to pass without answering the political rubbish that is uttered by the hon. Member for Carmarthen when he keeps talking about the people of Wales being colonials and saying that we are exploited by the English. It needs to be reiterated that we have a Prime Minister who represents a Welsh constituency, and a Deputy Prime Minister who represents a Welsh constituency, and we have a Secretary of State in the Cabinet. We also have a Home Secretary and a Foreign Secretary, who, although they represent English constituencies, come from Wales. Mr. Speaker, who presides over this House, happens to come from Wales, and along the Corridor in the House of Lords we have a Lord Chancellor who went to the same grammar school as I did in Llanelli.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I think that the hon. Member should remind the House that I come from Scotland.

Mr. Evans: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you were as free as I am to say in this House what I have got to say on this issue, you would say that you are as much against separatism as I am. I realise that you could not say it in your present independent capacity.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member has given a long list of Welsh people holding office in this Chamber and in the other place. In those circumstances, does he accept that, given all those people holding office and still having all the problems of Wales unresolved, we need a systematic change if we are to get an answer to those problems?

Mr. Evans: Yes. The hon. Member is making the point that I was able to make. I believe that the problems will be resolved by changing the economic system and not by changing the machinery of government. I shall not become involved in the controversy between my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham and Pontypool (Mr. Abse). One of them says that it is not a piece of Socialist legislation and the other says

that it is very much a piece of Socialist legislation. The point is that these proposals have very little to do with Socialism.
If we are to improve our position in Britain, it is true that we have to work to change the machinery of government. We have also to change our economic system. I was pleased to find that the hon. Member for Carmarthen is reading Socialist literature. I am glad that he is reading Arthur Henderson. On the last occasion he quoted Keir Hardie—an illustrious predecessor of mine who once represented the valley which I now have the honour to represent. No one could say that Keir Hardie or Arthur Henderson was a nationalist. They were Socialists, internationalists. They believed in the brotherhood of man and not in the concept put forward by the nationalist parties, which breeds racism.

Mr. Roy Hughes: There are other people in the House who know what Keir Hardie stood for. My study of history suggests that Keir Hardie was fully in support of a Parliament for Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Evans: If my hon. Friend looks at Keir Hardie's writings, he will find that he was basically an internationalist. It may well be that in the development of the Socialist movement in Britain, when the possibility of gaining control over this Chamber was a dim and distant dream, it was felt that Home Rule for Scotland and Wales might be a steppingstone to Socialism throughout the country. But today it is nonsense to suggest that we should cut ourselves off from the English.

Mr. Hooson: Should not the hon. Member be congratulating the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) on reaching the nineteenth century, and should he not try to emulate him?

Mr. Evans: I do not believe that the hon. Member for Carmarthen has reached the nineteenth century. I believe that he is trying to turn the clock back to 1536. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) may have some agreement, through his party, with the Government at the moment. But the Liberal Party has not accepted Socialist philosophy, so it has not been brought into the twentieth century. We have to


address ourselves to the fundamental problems facing us, and this requires Socialist policies.
I hope that no longer on the proceedings on this Bill shall we hear this nonsense from the nationalists about the Welsh being colonial people who are exploited by the wicked English in this House. Many Members of Welsh origin represent English constituencies. There are many Welsh people living happily in London, Birmingham and many other parts of England, just as there are many English people living, happily in Wales. That is why we reject the nationalist philosophy.
It has been said that there are four guiding principles for this Bill and the Scotland Bill—respect for the diversity and distinctive traditions of Scotland and Wales, conservation of the economic and political unity of the United Kingdom, the continuing and unimpaired sovereignty of Parliament, and fairness to the whole of the United Kingdom. If those are the guiding principles, we ought to have drafted different Bills.
There is no need for this Bill to respect the diversity and distinctive traditions of Wales. They are there. They were there before this Bill was talked about, and they will remain long after it is forgotten. The establishment of an elected Assembly as outlined in the Bill will undermine the economic and political unity of these islands. It will undermine and damage the the sovereignty of Parliament. I do not say that those who framed the Bill framed it with that in mind, but I believe that the consequence of this measure, if it goes through and is accepted by the people of Wales, will be to undermine the political and economic unity of the United Kingdom.
The purpose of the Bill has been described as being to strengthen the unity of the people of these islands, but what measure has provoked more Yorkshire nationalism, Lancashire nationalism and Merseyside nationalism as well as Welsh and Scottish nationalism?

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Wales Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until Two o'clock.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Evans: We in this House also have our rules and traditions which we must protect.
Although intended to deal with certain alleged injustices, the Bill will create greater injustices and undermine the desire that all the people of these islands should be treated fairly and equally. I believe that we are treated fairly and equally now, and we do not need the provisions of the Bill to ensure that.

Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman lacks consistency. A minute ago he was proclaiming his internationalism, yet he is concerned to preserve the sovereignty of this House and of the United Kingdom. How does he reconcile the two? How does he reconcile his internationalism with, for example, his hostility to the Common Market? As we move more into an international sphere, there is a greater demand in places such as Wales, Scotland and Yorkshire that people should have greater control over local matters.

Mr. Evans: As the hon. and learned Member knows, I believe in world unity.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman does not show it.

Mr. Evans: My objection to the Common Market was that it was an inward-looking organisation. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if a British Government or Parliament moved forward to a world association I should support such a measure. What I object to is the re-creation of boundaries. The boundary between Wales and England went in 1536, and it is no step forward for mankind to resurrect Offa's Dyke and try to put customs posts on the Severn Bridge. I recognise the sovereignty of our Parliament because this is our Assembly which we should support, but if the time comes for us to give up our sovereignty to some organisation of united nations, I shall support such a move. I am not inconsistent in what I have said about the purposes of the Bill and the guiding principle which the Government have enunciated.
What is interesting is the reaction of the nationalists to the Bill. The Government's purpose has been to maintain the


unity of the people of these islands, rejecting separatist and nationalist theories. I represent a constituency which was supposed to be facing a serious nationalist challenge in 1974. The nationalists made their calculations and said that they would win seats, and one seat they would certainly win was Aberdare. In fact, not only did we hold Aberdare in February with a substantial majority but our majority was greatly increased in October. I should add that my local party has taken a very strong anti-nationalist line.
Again, in the borough elections the nationalists said that they would win the Cynon Valley Borough Council. In the event, we won three seats from the nationalists. The nationalists had got in there in the past, but my party, by taking a firm and convincing line against the nationalists, pushed them out of the borough council, and Labour is now in control in my valley and is much stronger today than it has been for a number of years.
I call in aid what happened in Mid-Glamorgan too. The House will recall that the hon. Member for Carmarthen referred to the Church publication on devolution, but one can see at once how out of date it is. It presents the expectation that Mid-Glamorgan will be won by the nationalists next year. In fact, we had an election this year and, instead of winning, they lost three seats in my constituency.
If there were any opportunity for the nationalists to make advances, that opportunity should have come during the difficult years we have recently experienced.
But instead of advancing they have been retreating. They have gone to pieces in the valleys. The idea that the nationalists are on the march is nonsense. The hon. Member for Carmarthen used to say that in 10 years' time his party would be the largest in Wales. He has changed that a little, because at the last conference of his party he spoke about winning three seats. That was his prediction, but I make a counter-prediction. It is that the nationalists will lose their three seats because of the upsurge in Wales against nationalism.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen spoke of the ark of the people of Wales.

Time and again he has said that, but his party received the smallest number of votes at the General Election. He represents a party which contested 36 seats but lost deposits in 27 constituencies. Despite that, the nationalists speak of the ark of the people.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench must be concerned about what has happened in the past. When the Scotland and Wales Bill received its Second Reading, it was the nationalist parties who cheered the loudest. Nobody on our side of the House cheered. No one from the other Opposition parties cheered, not even the Liberals. The nationalists cheered because it meant that they would get their Assemblies, but then there was the guillotine motion. We were told of the dangers that would befall Britain if that motion was not passed.

Mr. Kinnock: It was said that there would be outrage in Wales.

Mr. Evans: Yes, but there was nothing of the sort. The nationalists were not cheering that night. In fact, one hon. Lady from the SNP went into the Lobby and cried her eyes out.

Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman know why? It was for a personal reason.

Mr. Evans: I do not know the reason for what happened. I am saying that the nationalist Benches cheered because they thought that at long last they had a stepping stone to an independent Scotland and Wales. That is why I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to be careful.
If there was a personal reason for the hon. Lady's tears that night, I am sorry.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The circumstance was personal but was perhaps interesting to the cause. It was the death of John McAteer, my agent in Hamilton. He died at the age of 42, having, in our opinion, served his country to the best of his ability. On that occasion I cried for my country because I believe that the gradualist way is the right way. When that motion was beaten, I could see a possibility that the House would not waken to the fact that national movements do not go away.

Mr. Evans: I did not know that that was the reason for the hon. Lady's tears. My only point is that it was the nationalists who were happy when the Bill was given a Second Reading and that it was they who were sorry when the guillotine motion was not carried. The nationalist parties of Scotland and Wales are committed to independence. They want to break up the United Kingdom. The Government's purpose in introducing this measure is to strengthen the unity of Britain, and one must draw attention to what happened on previous occasions because those events appeared strange indeed.
I interrupted my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when he was putting the case for giving the Bill a Second Reading. I believe that the proposal put to the Kilbrandon Commission by the Labour Party in Wales was that there should be a top elected local government tier in Wales that would deal with the nominated bodies. I believe that the proposal was concerned primarily with local government structure. It is regrettable that the Conservative Party went ahead with its plans, because it has made things difficult for the Labour Government to go ahead with their proposals.
I think that we were right to criticise the Conservative Party for the way in which it reorganised the National Health Service, local government and the water industry in Wales, but what we are doing is not tackling the problems that were created then. We are merely adding to them by bringing in what I believe is not an additional tier of government but a transfer of functions from this House to Wales. This is not a move towards a divorce between Wales and England. It is a form of legal separation: some of the functions that have been given to the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office are now to be transferred to Wales.
In Wales we have community councils, 36 district councils, eight county councils, a Welsh Office, numerous ad hoc authorities and a Secretary of State in the Cabinet. We have Parliament meeting here at Westminster. Then we have the European Economic Community with its added bureaucracy. To all this we are to add a Welsh Assembly.
In London there are 9 million people. There are more people in Greater London than there are in the whole of Scotland and Wales combined. London has a county council and metropolitan councils. Londoners seem to manage, yet we in Wales have all the extra government that I have mentioned. On top of that we are to create a Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a moment ago that he had visualised the Welsh Assembly or the Welsh elected council in terms of local government. Surely he will accept that the terms of reference of the Crowther Commission—later the Kilbrandon Commission—were to do with the operations of central government in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and other are as and not to do with local government. How could he possibly have interpreted his party's evidence to Kilbrandon in the terms he stated?

Mr. Evans: The evidence given by the Labour Party to Kilbrandon was concerned with a top-tier local authority. The term used was "an elected council for Wales". The term "an elected council for Wales" was not used without its having some meaning, because I believe that words have meaning. I believe that those concerned were talking about a council for the whole of Wales with a single unitary authority underneath. However, the Tories came to power and reorganised local government. In the present circumstances, we must think twice about putting local government through another process of change, but that is what will happen under the Bill.
The hon. Member for Cardigan referred to proportional representation. I am pleased that under this Bill the elections will be, as they were to be under the previous Bill, by the simple majority or first-past-the-post system. I understand that there is some agreement between the Government Front Bench and the Liberals that there shall be a free vote. I hope that the idea of proportional representation will be rejected from this side. I have argued this matter before and will not go into it in detail tonight.
I believe that if the system of election to the Assembly were to be by proportional representation it would benefit the


Labour Party in Wales, because the vast majority of Labour Members come in at present with an overall majority. That is more than can be said for certain others. Certainly the nationalists do not have an overall majority in any one of their seats.
I do not complain about the fact that there is to be a free vote. There should be free votes on constitutional issues. There should be greater freedom for Members to do what they think is right and not to be lined up on constitutional issues. However, I hope that the system of voting will be the simple majority method.
Many of us have argued that the people should be given the opportunity to decide this whole issue in a referendum. I welcome the concession that has been made by the Government to hold a referendum. We must remember that this was not in the original Bill and that there were those who were fighting so as to prevent the Welsh people from having the right to decide.
I have said before that I believe that the greatest facet of devolution should be to let the people themselves decide. I think that the Government saw the force of argument in the previous debate and accordingly have granted—

Mr. Anderson: Or the force of numbers.

Mr. Evans: I do not believe that. I believe that the Government have recognised that there is a good case for holding a referendum. Some believe that we must have this Bill so that we can have a referendum, but that is not so. It would be quite possible for the Government to hold a referendum even without this Bill. If we had had a referendum in the early part of last year, the contents of the measure could have been outlined to the people and they could have been told "This is what the Government propose to do. Do you want it or do you not want it?".
When we consider the clause that enshrines the fact that we are to have a referendum, I hope that further consideration will be given to the form of words that will appear on the ballot paper. The form of words can led to a loaded question. The question should be as simple as possible. The debate will take place

and there will be those campaigning for the Bill and there will be those who are against it.
Of course, if matters proceed as the Government intend, the measure will be become an Act. It will be enough to ask "Do you want the provisions of the Act to be put into effect—'Yes' or 'No'?". That will be enough. The appendix states:
Parliament has decided that there should be a referendum in Wales to consult the electorate on the question whether the Wales Act 1977 should be put into effect. The Act provides that there should be an elected Welsh Assembly and that Wales should remain part of the United Kingdom.
That might lead one to suppose that the people will be votiing on whether we are to remain a part of the United Kingdom. Presumably Wales will
remain part of the United Kingdom
irrespective of whether we get the Bill.
There is argument whether the Bill is strengthening that unity. We must consider this issue again, withdraw the Preamble and put the question straight to the people.

Mr. John Mendelson: My hon. Friend has led himself to the question that I wished to put to him. As he knows, I do not share his enthusiasm for the referendum. As he has said, the question may be put in different ways. It should not be loaded as it obviously is now. However, I enter another caveat. If there is to be a referendum, will my hon. Friend wish to ensure that the Welsh Labour Party will not take part in the campaign on the basis that it is a vote of confidence in Mr. James Callaghan and the Labour Party?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I shall not take it up as I have spoken for much longer than I intended.
I have a series of questions that I wish to put to my right hon. Friend the Lord President and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. If my questions cannot be answered tonight, I hope that I shall have definite answers when these matters are considered in Committee. If we have an Assembly, shall we continue to have a Secretary of State for Wales? I believe that the Secretary of State for Wales occupies an important position. At present Scotland and


Wales are recognised when Cabinet meetings take place, because there is a representative for Wales and another for Scotland. If many of the functions now performed by the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland are to be transferred to the Assemblies, it might well be questioned whether they deserve a place in the Cabinet. The 9 million people in London do not have a London Cabinet Minister. Will the Secretary of State for Wales continue to have a seat in the Cabinet?
What is to happen to local government in Wales? The question has not been answered completely. There will be a state of anxiety among those involved in the counties and districts. It is no use hon. Members saying that it is the counties that will go and not the districts, while others say that it is the districts that will go and not the counties. The fact is that they will all go into the melting pot if the Welsh Assembly is to be responsible for local government. It is no use saying that the counties and districts will not be touched. It is no use saying that they will be allowed to continue as they are today if we are to have a Welsh Assembly. That is why I raised the matter on Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill. It is a matter to which we have to address our minds.
There has been an attempt to avoid awkward issues by saying that first we have to have a Welsh Assembly. I hope that there will be clarification when we consider the relevant clauses. What is to happen to those now employed in local government administration? If we go ahead and appoint an Assembly, it will presumably be necessary to make new Civil Service appointments. Presumably the civil servants will not be transferred from the Welsh Office. Presumably the civil servants at the Welsh Office will stay at the Welsh Office. There will have to be new appointments for the Assembly. What is to happen to those at county and district level who could well fit the posts that will be created if the Welsh Assembly is to be set up?
Are there to be any guarantees that the number of Members from Wales in this place will not be reduced? I am with my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) when he says

that there should be no argument for reducing the number of Members from Scotland and Wales in this House. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) wants Britain to break up—we all know it. It is no use her interrupting my series of questions.
Again, will Members from Wales in this House be allowed to raise questions about health, education, housing, the social services and the environment? I have an Adjournment motion this week. People in my constituency are deeply concerned about certain decisions on the health services. I have a right to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. Shall I have that right after the Assembly is established? Let us have an authoritative answer. When we talk about what we are giving the people of Wales, we must also say what we are taking away.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Nothing.

Mr. Evans: What will happen to the Welsh Grand Committee? There is no mention of that. In the Welsh Grand Committee, we discuss issues of national concern. If the practice in the Assembly is not being used to the greatest advantage, what will happen? Again, what alteration is there to be to Welsh Question Time? What Questions will we be able to ask of the Secretary of State for Wales?
Are we to have a fairly-conducted referendum? I am one of those who believe that the Common Market referendum was not fair. Those who were for it had their say and those against it had their say, but then the majority of the Cabinet issued another edict and sent it through the post to the electorate, thereby giving two "goes" to those who were for continued membership compared with those who were against.
If we are to have a referendum on this issue, let us make it clear from the start that it is going to be fair. Would there be consultation about the question on the ballot paper in order to ensure objectivity? I am glad that we have the terms of the ballot paper in the Bill—we can study them well in advance. I hope that on this issue there will be a consensus in the House that the question should be put fairly and squarely before the people.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will appreciate the point when I remind him that some Ministers were ardently for membership of the Common Market, others not so ardent, and others against. They were allowed—and it was good for British democracy—the freedom to put their points of view. Will Ministers be allowed the same freedom on this issue? If they have reservations in heart or head about the provisions of the Bill, will they have the freedom that they had on the Common Market issue to say what they think to the people?
There is a greater proportion of public expenditure in Wales compared with England. Will a directly-elected Assembly mean a reduction of public expenditure in Wales? The general belief is that more will be spent, but there will be a block grant and the argument will be, no doubt, that public expenditure should be according to population basis and not what it has been up to now, on a United Kingdom basis, according to need.
While I believe that the Government have attempted truly to fulfil an election manifesto commitment, I do not think that we considered all its implications when it was made. I believe that we can improve the machinery of this House and that there may be an argument for devolving powers from the House. But we must ensure that we do not pass a Bill with built-in obsolescence.
I want to remain united with Scotland and England. That is why I hope that the nationalist challenge in Scotland will be defeated. We must look carefully and closely at what is implied in the Bill. We condemned the Tories because they rushed into legislation on the reorganisation of local government and the National Health Service. It is no good complaining about them if we are to compound the disadvantage by adding to what they have already done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The House has agreed that the Bill should be proceeded with until 2 a.m. However, if we have 36-minute contributions from the Back Benches it will be impossible to accommodate hon. Members who have been sitting here all day and are anxious to take part in the debate.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: As I shall be referring to a number of points that were made by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), I shall not follow him directly except to say that it seems that he wanted answers to many relevant questions.
For my part, I am sorry to say that I find the Bill curiously deceptive and disappointingly devious from beginning to end. The Clause 1 states that the changes proposed in the government of Wales.
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament.
Surely this is a matter of opinion and interpretation rather than a matter of fact.
Some of those who are for the Bill want want it unashamedly because they believe that it is a step towards an independent Wales. Others who are in favour of the Bill, such as the Government, regard it as a measure to forestall and neutralise the separatists. Those of us who are against the Bill regard it as a surrender in the direction of separatism. To say that the Bill does not affect the unity of the United Kingdom does not ring true.
This false, negative assurance is carried a stage further in the appendix to the Bill which deals with the content of the referendum ballot paper. The people of Wales are to be told positively in that ballot paper that
the Act provides … that Wales should remain part of the United Kingdom.
That is different from the negative statement in Clause 1. By using the word "should" in that context, the Government are simply putting a legislative cloak over what one might call a dutiful intention which amounts to little more than a slender hope.
We agree with the Government that Wales and Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom, but others do not agree. The others are right to interpret the Bill as a step that furthers their cause. The Government delude themselves when they deny that that is so. Perhaps the crux of the matter is that the


Government regard the Bill as being towards the end of the alphabet of devolution. It is only the beginning. It lies somewhere around the gamma mark.
If the Bill is passed, over the next few years there will be a progression from it and amendments to it which will weaken the links between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the shape of things to come. The Bill represents the beginning of the parting of the ways between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. We are not dealing with a static situation. Those who have listened to the debate realise only too well that the passage of the Bill will give the biggest fillip to nationalism and separatism that they have had for a long time.
During the Summer Recess I visited Canada and paid particular attention to the situation in Quebec Province which has enjoyed a large measure of self-government under the federal system established towards the end of last century. But that is not enough self-government in the opinion of the Pequists, as the Press now call the Parti Quebequois. The Parti Quebequois Government are to hold a referendum in the next year or so on the issue of independence for the Province.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Quite right.

Mr. Roberts: The French Government have pledged their support for whatever line the Pequists decide to follow. Having heard the intervention of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), I do not have to wonder how long it would be before a similar situation developed in Scotland and Wales if the Bills were passed. What is to prevent a Scottish Assembly holding a referendum on independence for Scotland?

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Nothing.

Mr. Roberts: What is to prevent a Welsh Assembly similarly holding a referendum on independence and then, as the Quebec Government intend doing, negotiating from a position of strength with the federal Government?

Mr. Roy Hughes: I stand for the United Kingdom, and no one could ever contest that. But one must ask the following question: what if it seemed to be the overwhelming desire of the people of Scotland for independence? What

would the hon. Gentleman suggest—that the troops be sent there?

Mr. Roberts: The question is highly speculative. The Bill might well not pass the referendum test in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will not."] I am assured that it will not, but there is a deal of uncertainty. All that I am asking now is this. What is to prevent a Scottish or Welsh Assembly pursuing that course? I hope that the question will be answered by the Lord President in his winding-up speech.
Even before the Bill is on the statute book, the allocation of further powers for the Assembly is under discussion. The power to raise taxes will, of course, be denied until after the referendum, because that is a vote-loser if ever there was one, but the Government have no objection in principle. From the central Government's point of view, it is desirable that the Assembly should have the power to tax, because that is the only way to silence the inevitable incessant clamour for an increase in the block grant.
I thought that in his opening speech the Secretary of State for Wales skated over the financial provisions of the Bill. I should like the Lord President to confirm that the attitude of the Secretary of State and the Government is similar to that expressed yesterday by the Secretary of State for Scotland when he said:
if the Assembly wishes to bring forward ideas about marginal tax powers we shall certainly be willing to discuss them with it."—[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 67]
Are the Government's views regarding taxation by the Assembly in Wales identical? While the Lord President is clearing up that point, perhaps he will also clear up the allocation of finance on the block grant system as well. Will it be on a four-year basis and on a formula system for Wales? These matters were clearly explained for Scotland. They were not so explained for Wales.
Then there is the power to legislate, already granted to Scotland. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was right when he said that whatever is granted to Scotland cannot long be denied to Wales, even if it is of doubtful benefit.
Under this Bill, Wales is to be governed by orders emanating, from the Secretary of State for Wales or the Assembly. I am sure in my own mind that the frontier


between them will be the scene of interminable border raids and skirmishes, with the Secretary of State always on the defensive. I cannot see a directly-elected Assembly, whose power base in the electorate is identical with that of this House, contenting itself with the provisions of the Bill and its 84 commandments.
The Assembly will be an aggressive, power-hungry body with a nationalistic ethos. Of course, in all probability we would have elected Members in the Assembly from all parts of the party political spectrum, but their basic sentiments would be nationalistic and hostile to Westminster. In time that would have an effect on the tone and character of Welsh representation in this House. I think that the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is missing the point if he does not realise how Welsh representation will change, not only in this House but, suspect, in the European Parliament. Welsh representation there will also have a nationalistic ethos. We do not know how the European Parliament will develop, but we know that some of its promoters have a penchant for federalism and that the Commission would like to work more directly with regional institutions within the member States.
Wales will send four Members to the European Parliament if the European Assembly Elections Bill goes through as it stands. When that Bill is debated, it will be argued that Wales would have more representatives if it were an independent State, like the Irish Republic or Luxembourg. Again, the hon. Member for Merioneth will come to my assistance, because this argument will continue while Wales remains part of the United Kingdom and is not an independent State. This will be driven home through the media by propaganda to the Welsh people, who, will think that they are missing out on something.
My basic contention is that the Bill, taken with the Scotland Bill and the European Assembly Elections Bill, proposes changes that not only affect the unity of the United Kingdom but open up an entirely new political vista or ball game It is a return not just to 1886 and all that, so vividly described by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in his recently-published biography of Joseph Chamberlain—Irish Home Rule,

local government and the composition of an Imperial Parliament—but, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) intimated, to the Middle Ages, and to the earlier part of the Middle Ages—to the twelfth century of Giraldus Cambrensis. That is the return that is prognosticated for Wales in the Bill. As far as I know, England has only narrowly escaped the return to the heptarchy of the Dark Ages.
We know that the Government were goaded into the course of action they now pursue through a fear of losing seats in Scotland and Wales. But presuming that they were prompted by the highest motives rather than the highly dubious ones attributed to them, would the political framework proposed be right for the future?
The Bill makes nonsense of representation in this House. The point has been made again and again in the debate that the powers of the Secretary of States for Wales will be reduced, and so will the responsibilities of Welsh Members. We should be more closely involved in the supervision of government in Wales through a Select Committee, not segregated and emasculated as proposed in the Bill.
Implementation of the Bill would be too costly in every sense. It would set up a more complex and cumbersome machinery of government. It is like putting the Irish mail train on the Snowdon railway. It is tailor-made for the Labour Party caucus in South Wales. Welsh problems now and in the foreseeable future are not primarily governmental but economic, and the Bill will do nothing about unemployment. This is only wishful thinking on the part of the hon. Member for Carmarthen. The only thing it will try to do is contain some of the adverse reactions within Wales in the Assembly and keep them away from Westminster. I am very doubtful about the merit and value of that to the people of Wales, in both the long and the short terms.
We in Wales are politically oriented. We look too much to Governments to solve our problems. The Bill will increase our dependence on Government action. I do not believe that that is in the best interests of Wales in the long term.
Local Government will be thrown into the melting pot once again under Clause 13. We all know that. The reason for this was put very succinctly by the Association of District Councils, writing on behalf of the Council for the Principality. It said:
To avoid over-government, if the Assembly is created local government should be examined with the object of creating multi-purpose authorities in the place of the present county and district councils.
Our charge of over-government has finally stuck, and the Government intend to hack down the lower tiers of local government. The fact that the whole edifice of justification for devolution falls in the process does not seem to worry the Government.
I recommend that the Government reread paragraph 83 of the consultative document "Devolution—the English Dimension". It says:
A further reorganisation so soon after the last one would be bound to create confusion in the mind of the average elector. Probably he would feel more remote from the affairs of a local government body administering services over a much wider area. This certainly would be the case with regional authorities.
What we need in local government is limited reform—the removal of overlapping functions, not the scrapping of the whole system.
Devolution has been rejected as being not good enough for England. I do not think that this Bill is good enough for Wales. If it is forced through Parliament under the guillotine, it will be surely rejected by the people of Wales in the referendum.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I was amused to hear the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) refer to the fears of a South Walean Labour caucus dominating the Assembly. I have heard similar anxiety expressed in South Wales that people from North Wales will come down from the mountains and take our jobs due to some form of language job reservation.
It is inevitable that those who have listened to the debate have a sense of déjà vu. This is where we came in. We have been here before. It is unlikely that

any arguments advanced tonight will be very different from the days and days of argument about the previous Bill last Session.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State began by saying that the Bill was about democracy and that anyone who opposed it was, by definition, anti-democratic. Then he said that, as a result of the Bill, there would be no effect on local government, no effect on the powers of the Secretary of State and no effect on the representation and the powers of this House.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) asked what Questions might be asked in Parliament. I tried to figure out what Questions it would be possible to put to the Secretary of State. An hon. Member might frame a couple of Questions—when will my right hon. and learned Friend next visit Builth Wells? What is my right hon. and learned Friend's programme for Wednesday of next week? But any matter of real interest to the people whom we represent will be covered by the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: There is an even more difficult problem. At present, if a Welsh Member writes, say, to the Secretary of State for Social Services or to the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a general question about the United Kingdom, invariably the hon. Member is fobbed off with a reply saying that the Secretary of State for Wales is reponsible for these matters in Wales and, therefore, that he must answer. I am not sure even whether we shall be able to table Questions on a United Kingdom basis very effectively.

Mr. Anderson: Clearly, there will be a small and diminishing area of responsibility for those who remain in this House.
The greater part of this Session is to be devoted to three constitutional measures, and many people think that they are a distraction or an irrelevance for us. It is clear that there is no enthusiasm for this Bill. Certainly there is no enthusiasm among the people for whom it is intended to provide that democratic element to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. In Scotland there may be movements which I do not comprehend but which may in a referendum lead to the acceptance of


something like this Bill, but in Wales there is no such view. Certainly there is not among people in Wales whom I know.
There is no great enthusiasm in Parliament, as evidenced by the vote last February on the guillotine motion. There is no enthusiasm among Labour activists. Members of my own constituency party talk of an irrelevance and a waste of a parliamentary Session. What is more, they say that there is nothing in the Bill for the people whom we claim to represent. Yet there is among many Back Benchers the grudging feeling that, somehow, we must go along with the Bill because there is a commitment in our party manifesto, by whatever tortuous route that commitment was arrived at.
I was interested to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that we should not be too worried about nomenclature and that the transition from a Welsh Council, which had the overtones of the top tier of local government, to an Assembly did not really matter. I wonder whether a similar view will be taken about the transition from Chief Executive to Prime Minister of Wales, because I have n doubt that there will be a slippage along these same lines. But what is in a name, after all when we have a Prime Minister for Wales?
Another, and perhaps more respectable, argument is that an end to this question must be sought. There will not be a different measure on the general theme of devolution during this Parliament or probably the next, and, even if we are concerned about the road that we have taken to get here a decision has to be taken at some stage.
It is a sad commentary on our decision-making process that, instead of looking at central and local government, we went off with a half-baked local government scheme in 1972, the Labour Government missed several opportunities between 1964 and 1970 and we have tried, improbably, to dovetail this scheme.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does not my hon. Friend also regard it as a sad commentary on our decision-making process that a majority in the House is opposed to both the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill yet both will pass?

Mr. Anderson: That is a relevant point. It is a pity that we did not study the whole area of central and local government in an attempt to find a consensus.
There are no great changes in the Bill. Major problems remain, including the likelihood of constitutional conflict between an elected Assembly that is of a different political complexion from the Westminster Government. In any attempt by the Government to take a longer view, they would surely have foreseen such a constitutional conflict and the inevitable momentum along the road of separation. There is a lack of coherence in the proposed structure. There is no precedent for this form of half-way house. There is no stopping-point along the road to separation as there would be in a federal system. The strength of the Liberal's proposal is that it would provide checks. There would be a constitutional court, and that would be very different from the present ill-thought-out system of resolving a constitutional conflict. It involves the Privy Council in Scotland and an odd system involving the Attorney-General in Wales. The Government have hesitated to go along the road of a fully-fledged constitutional court as a check on the Assembly.
The position of Scottish and Welsh parliamentarians at Westminster has not been fully thought through. A new bureaucracy will be established in Cardiff. We are told that it will involve an extra 1,150 civil servants. One party activist in my constituency told me that the only advantage he could see in the Bill was as a job creation scheme for civil servants in Wales.
Let us not forget the rather charming way in which the Government have taken credit for the changes that have been brought about. There have been changes in the referendum—which the Government now say they have favoured all along—and a change by having two Bills instead of one omnibus measure. According to the Secretary of State for Scotland, that is a distinct improvement.
Clearly the Government have not considered the evolutionary process, the improvement of parliamentary scrutiny and the change in the top tier of local Government that would be in conformity with the normal method of constitutional change and advance in this


country. On Clause 1 and the alleged lack of effect on the unity of the United Kingdom, this is not a statement of fact but rather a pious aspiration which will be undermined by the growth potential and the fact of development of the Assembly.
In Clause 38, which contains the guidelines for industrial and economic policies, there is an obvious danger that the several areas, the Scottish, Welsh and English areas, will seek to enter into a Dutch auction to attract outside investment into their own areas, and tension will therefore arise because of this danger. We are told in Clause 38 that there will be guidelines. One wonders what their statutory force will be in particular situations.
We are told in Clause 13 that the Assembly will
review the structure of local government.
The phrase is "review the structure." It is pregnant with meaning or non-meaning. What does "structure" mean? How can we possibly separate structure from powers? One does not simply draw lines. Structure means powers. The whole concept of local government must be looked at, yet we have this seemingly innocuous word "structure", which suggests simply drawing lines. Powers must inevitably be put under scrutiny in this process.
Will the Secretary of State or Parliament simply throw the whole responsibility to the Assembly and merely rubber stamp some suggestion from the Assembly? Are the government prepared to put up with the uncertainty that will arise at this time? Given the accepted unpopularity of the present local government structure, which is still gelling more satisfactorily now than some had thought a year or two back, have the Government seriously thought, for example, of amending the Local Government Act to clarify the obvious points of conflict on planning between the county councils and the district councils? Would not that be a more profitable line to pursue rather than a root-and-branch reform as is currently suggested?
Indeed, it may well be that if there is to be a series of district councils, perhaps 20 or 30, when one cannot en-

visage 20 or 30 separate local education authorities in Wales, we shall find that education, for example, is becoming more remote from the people because a large part of education will swim to the centre away from the counties which currently exercise responsibility in education.
As for the four-year financial programme, it is suggested that there will be wise men, that the criteria for need resources will be looked at and that there will be a formula, as if that formula can somehow take the whole question of the block grant out of politics. That again is surely a pipe dream on the part of the Government.
On specific points on clauses, I turn finally to the referendum. I have pressed for a referendum. A referendum has been obtained. I shall give my reaction to its very shortly, but I am always a fairly sceptical person about Governments as such. Put not your trust in Governments, almost said the old Book. I am particularly concerned that the Government try—I am trying to think of a nice word—to manipulate the referendum in various ways. There is the loaded question that is now proposed.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Like we had for the EEC.

Mr. Anderson: If my hon. Friend concedes my point, I shall concede his.
Secondly, there is the point that this should not be at the time of a General Election and that Ministers should be free. One knows that several Ministers have the most profound doubts about the Bill. It is surely quite wrong that Ministers should be press-ganged into stating views that they do not hold. At the time of the referendum Ministers should be free, as with the EEC precedent, to express their own views.
There is also the point that the two referendums in Scotland and Wales should be held simultaneously to ensure that there is no suggestion that if it is more likely that the referendum in Scotland will show a "Yes" vote we in Wales, on a "me too" basis, will follow meekly in train. The referendum must be seen to be fair.
I concede that the present system is far from satisfactory. I concede the case for decentralisation. It is a case which has been accepted by the Government in


a number of specialist areas. We see it in the transport White Paper published this year and in the greater responsibilities given to county councils, which I favour. Similarly, the extra decentralisation in housing which the Department of the Environment has suggested in the housing White Paper is another example. This is an acceptable form of decentralisation.
One fears that the genesis of the Bill has something to do with nationalism. If there were to be a delay in this Bill, whatever may be the situation in Scotland—it is an area I do not know and on which I do not seek to pronounce—it is clear that we could look at the problems of government and of decentralisation in a Welsh and English context, looking at administrative devolution away from any nationalist trappings which, I fear, are bound to be apparent if we go ahead on the present basis.
Having said that, having expressed my profound scepticism of the Bill and my fears about the future, I have to say that my present inclination is nevertheless to vote for the Bill on Second Reading. I say this although I fear that the Government will say al the time of the referendum that Parliament has shown its approval of the Bill—

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate what a devastating indictment of the Bill his speech has been? Does he recognise that he has not uttered a word in its favour? He has dissected it with great skill and demolished practically everything the Secretary of State said. Yet he now says that he intends to vote for it.

Mr. Anderson: If the hon. Member will contain his impatience, I hope to give what I think the Continentals call an explanation of vote which has convinced me and may or may not convince him.
I concede that there is a danger of the Government saying that a majority in Parliament on Second Reading has shown that it is in favour of the Bill. I would hope that the sort of speech I have made tonight will show that those who go into the Government Lobby include a group who have the most profound misgivings and who wish to place on record that we are not supporting the Bill per se. My view is that there has to be an end to

the spectre of devolution, and the only way properly in which to exercise it is by a referendum.
When, in February of this year, by parliamentary vote, the progress of the Bill was stopped, there began a legend—and the Welsh National Party feeds on legends, as it always has done, being a party bred on folk-lore—that the aspirations of the Welsh people were being thwarted by some backstairs manoeuvrings in Parliament. The best way to kill that is for it to be put to the people of Wales. This Parliament will, in its own way, propose. I am confident that when it comes to the referendum in the autumn, the Welsh people will dispose.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Michael Roberts: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) should reach such a poor conclusion after so brilliant a speech—one of the most well-reasoned speeches we have heard today. He intends to crown his speech with a vote against everything he has said.
There was one thing that the hon. Member said with which I do not agree. He described—it is becoming characteristic of this House so to describe it—the 1972 reorganisation of local government as half-baked, disastrous, a great mistake and so on. If the scheme of reorganisation has not proved ideal, I cannot think of a stranger way to put it right than suddenly to set up a new Assembly and say that its first task will be to review the structure and present its findings as its first piece of work to this House, so that it will be incumbent upon us to accept it. Why should we believe that a newly-elected Assembly will come up with something so much better than that which we have done?
I put this to those who so glibly criticise the 1972 reorganisation. If it needs to be restructured in Wales, presumably it needs to be restructured in England too, but we do not hear quite so much about that.
Local government is unpopular. It is easy to criticise it and pretend that there was once a time when local government was popular. It never has been. It has always been subject to criticism. It has always been thought to be too expensive.


But one of the reasons why local government in Wales is so expensive is that when the salary structure was organised in 1974 there was a general increase of salaries across the board for local government officials and for teachers. That made local government more expensive.
The newly-constructed local authorities were then told, on no less authority than that of the Welsh Office, to go out on a great expansive programme and build houses. In 1974 they were told that they must do everything they possibly could to expand and then in 1975, after they had taken on extra staff to get on with the expansion, they were told "No, you must cut back."
When we blame local authorities and say that they are not popular, let us at least be honest enough to ask why they are not popular. Sometimes the responsibility will come straight back to our own Government and to the Welsh Office.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is displaying a little ignorance of what is happening in English local government. As I understand it, the Secretary of State for the Environment is now as busy as he can be drawing up plans to try to give back to some of our important cities in England powers which they had exercised over generations or, in some cases, over centuries.

Mr. Kinnock: While the hon. Gentleman is investigating the activities of the Secretary of State for the Environment, he might refer also to the Green Paper on devolution produced by the same Secretary of State, which says that it would be a totally inappropriate and thoroughly incompetent way to conduct government in England.

Mr. Roberts: Yes, I am aware of the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment that he is thinking in terms of 10 unitary authorities. What would be more convincing, if we were looking at the problems of local authorities, would be to argue that the present authorities are not doing their jobs in terms of education and social services. But everyone who knows anything about local authorities—I give credit to the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) for his knowledge of these matters—knows that one of the most difficult tasks for an authority to undertake is to build up its con-

tacts with parents and teachers, to build up its relationship with the aged and the sick, and to develop the social services. These things do not come in a moment.
I should not wish to hazard all the good work which has been done not because of reorganisation but by the people involved in local government over the past five or six years in creating a good relationship in their comprehensive schools, a good relationship with their teachers and a good relationship with the aged and the sick. I should not put all that at hazard unless I was absolutely certain that I could produce something substantially better, and not for a moment should I recommend that this new Assembly will suddenly come up with something better.
It is characteristic of the Welsh nationalists that they show no generosity whatsoever to any of their fellow citizens in Wales. The bulk of the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) amounted to a vicious attack on all those who do not agree with him. He referred to the disestablishment battle just after the last war. He spoke of the Tory Party fighting against disestablishment, but he neglected to say that the Church itself, to a man, fought against it. He went on to say, in that characteristic way of his, that those who were in favour of devolution were for Wales and that those who were against it were against Wales. When will the hon. Member, who admittedly does not believe in the defence of the kingdom and does not believe in the unity of the realm, recognise that there are Welshmen who profoundly disagree with what he stands for but who are nevertheless very good Welshmen and are respected in their own communities?
When the hon. Gentleman talks about Welshmen fighting for freedom, he should remember that they have done so. In the last war they fought for freedom, just as they did in the war before that. [An HON. MEMBER: "And at Agincourt."] They did rather well at Agincourt. They fought for the unity of Great Britain. When the hon. Gentleman sneers at Wales and says that we have no freedom, he should realise that we fought for that freedom and many Welshmen died for it, and that in making his statement he places a bitter wreath on so many hallowed graves.
I now come to the question of popular support for this measure. One thing that this proposal has never conjured up is popular support, least of all in the county of Gwent and in areas such as Cardiff. Large areas of the Principality, where the bulk of the population live, have never indicated that they give this measure their popular support.
Why, then, do the Government think that it is urgent that they should introduce the Bill? I suspect that it is because in the 1960s they became a little worried about the by-election results at Rhondda. West and Caerphilly, and they have been hooked on their own expediency.
There is talk of a referendum, but the very people who earlier fought as hard as they could against the concept of a referendum now turn round and say that we must give the Welsh people an opportunity to speak. The Welsh people might have to speak on this matter, but it would be far better if the House spoke, and spoke decisively, for them.
I now come to my last point. It relates to what I believe is the most important issue of the day, and that is the national dimension in this proposal. The Western Mail has always supported the idea of devolution and an Assembly in Wales. The editor of the Western Mail believes —he has not always done so, but he does now—that this proposal will lead to better government for Wales. He believes that administratively it will lead to better government. No doubt he feels that his native Yorkshire would benefit if that great county were to receive a similar Assembly and a similar administrative means of improving its government. Some of those who do not accept the administrative argument are a little sceptical of the fact that it is only in Scotland and Wales that the Government propose Assemblies of this sort.
I believe that the vast majority of the Welsh people will not read the Bill. I believe that the vast majority of them will not study in detail the arguments advanced at any referendum that might occur. However, I believe that the vast majority of Welshmen instinctively know what this proposal is all about. If one is a Welshman, one can see it more easily. It is all about the national dimension. It is all about nationalism. Those who feel it as Plaid Cymru members

and their supporters do, who feel the national dimension so acutely and want a separate Government, will vote for devolution in the referendum because they want a separate nation.
The vast majority of Welshmen instinctively will know that that is the essential issue, and if it comes to a referndum, 80 per cent. or 75 per cent. will vote against it and the Government will have wasted their time, our time and everybody else's time.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I welcome the Government's new Bill. I am glad that they have stuck to their guns. Tribute should be paid in particular to the Lord President for the way in which he has pioneered devolution. We know that he is not a native of Wales, though I appreciate that he has contacts there. At least he has fought elections there. He is, too, a man of the highest possible integrity. He came to the conclusion, representing a Welsh seat, that an elected Assembly would be of the utmost benefit to the people of Wales, and he has stuck to that conclusion. His predecessor was the motivation for my joining the Labour movement. I am sure that if he were present today he would appreciate the wisdom of the legislation that the Government are introducing.
I cannot understand the attitude of some of my colleagues. I have not automatically supported all proposals by this Government. For instance, in the 1966 Parliament I was almost as much of a rebel as my right hon. Friend the Lord President. We dissented from the Government on many issues—on statutory incomes policy, on the document "In Place of Strife", on the Government's policy in Vietnam, over the reform of the House of Lords and so on. So I do not indulge in any sychophantic support of the Government.
Many of our colleagues in Wales had this specific pledge in their election address. They said "A Labour Government will introduce an elected Assembly for Wales." What could be simpler? Having participated in the discussions so many times, I know that this policy arose as a result of the unanimous decision of Welsh Labour Members. We concluded our discussions with only one absentee. The deliberations throughout were presided over by none other than the


present Mr. Speaker. What could be better than that?
Then there is the attitude of other sections of the Labour movement in Wales. The Welsh TUC gives this legislation its full support. So does the Labour Party in Wales. After all, the Labour movement is essentially a banding together of ordinary people who arrive at collective decisions. I am sufficiently old-fashioned to believe that those decisions should be heeded.
The vexed question of local government has been mentioned many times in this debate and on previous occasions. I suppose that the former Conservative Government must be given some credit for having had the courage to carry out the reorganisation of local government. However, their reorganisation was a disaster of the first order and highly inflationary into the bargain. In the process many local identities were lost. Many of the towns and cities that had carried out certain functions of local government over the generations and over the centuries lost their powers. That was most regrettable. There is the new qualification in the Bill that a plan must be drawn up to reorganise local government once again.
I am a firm believer in public expenditure but I am anti-bureaucratic. I believe in such things as reducing the pupil-teacher ratio and building new hospitals. I remain of the view that the Conservative local government reorganisation was a bureaucratic extravaganza. I hope that in the plans that will be drawn up we shall seek to reduce local government in Wales to one tier. There has been a great duplication of functions and a waste of important people.
I qualify my remarks by saying, as I intervened in the opening remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, that I hope that the position of local government officers will be seriously considered. I hope that their position will be safeguarded. I hope that it will be made possible for some of them to be transferred to the new Assembly. In that way we could avoid possible redundancies in local government.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend refers to one of the difficulties that might stem from the Government's proposals to

reorganise local government with the creation of an elected council or Assembly. Will those now engaged in local government administration be transferred to the Assembly to maintain the existing local government structure and then be given the task of changing it at a later stage? How can they be transferred from their existing appointments when they have duties to perform for the counties and districts?

Mr. Hughes: I do not underestimate the problem that my hon. Friend points out. We know that it has been caused essentially by the premature reorganisation of local government carried out by the previous Conservative Government. However, the difficulties must be overcome. I hope that the creation of an elected Assembly under the Bill will eventually result in the simplification of local government. I am sure that the Government will find some way of accommodating local government officers who may be affected.
The nominated bodies have proliferated over so many years. The posts have been essentially filled by those whom we term Tory placemen. As the Secretary of State has admitted, there is also the bureaucracy of the Welsh Office. I remember a meeting in a Committee Room which was attended by my right hon. and learned Friend and made a great impression upon me at the time. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he had to make a decision about roads. He said that the M4 in South Wales needed to be built but that there were many road schemes in other parts of Wales that deserved a high degree of priority. He pointed out that the decision had been left to him and that he felt that such decisions should be made by elected representatives. I agree with his point of view. Of course, the Conservatives want to retain the present system whereby their placemen have benefited so much over the years.
This discussion has gone on for such a long time. The time for decision is now at hand. This Bill will get my full support because I believe that it is essential in the interests of my constituents and in the interests of Wales as a whole.

11.25 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker—so brief that


I advise whoever is next to catch your eye not to go to sleep while I am speaking.
I am a sceptic on the matter of devolution, but my constituents are far from being sceptical. They are, almost to a man, against it. Since I have in this matter pledged myself to respect their wishes, I am extremely popular with them—so popular that evidently Plaid Cymru thinks it useless to fight me at the next General Election and has put no candidate into the field against me.
I shall certainly vote against Second Reading. I believe that devolution in the form proposed by the Government will be bad for Wales. I choose my words carefully. I say "bad for Wales"—I do not mean that it will be a catastrophe for Wales, and certainly not such a catastrophe as the return of a Labour Government at the next General Election with a substantial majority would be. But it would be bad for Wales, and I believe that it would almost certainly be unworkable.
For that reason, even if we pass the Bill through all its stages in this place, I am certain that the people of Wales will reject it in a referendum. In that case, we shall have wasted a further period of months here—wasted our time and the taxpayers' money. I earnestly hope that even if the Second Reading goes through we can still pass an amendment for a referendum to come at an earlier stage.
If, nevertheless, devolution is to come—and I devoutly hope that it will not—it behoves all of us to try to make it work. I do not believe that it can be made to work without some form of proportional representation, and when we come to the relevant part of the Bill I shall be voting for an amendment to that effect.
I feel sure that the schemes proposed in the Bill cannot possibly endure for more than three or four years at the outside. I believe that once we start down the road to devolution there is only one stopping-place short of the complete break-up of the United Kingdom, and that is as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said, a fully federal United Kingdom. For the time being, however, I believe that there is a very good chance of stopping the present measure of devolution, which is

wanted by so few in Wales and by virtually no one in my constituency.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: No one who has sat through these two days of debate will be able to doubt that there are ethnic differences between the Scots and the Welsh. No Scotsman can hope to emulate the magnificent rhetoric and mellifluous phrases which have resounded in the Chamber today and on other occasions.
I would not normally presume to take part in a debate which is ostensibly about Wales, but, of course, the debate is not just about Wales, any more than the debate yesterday was just about Scotland. The debates on these two Bills and the debate tomorrow are about the future of the United Kingdom.
The tragedy of the debate and of the Government's approach to devolution as a whole is that it is fragmentary. We all know why the Scotland and Wales Bill of the last Session has now been metamorphosed into the Scotland and Wales Bills now before us. It is a response to political pressure; it is one of the Government's changes in the interests of getting devolution through.
The correct response should have been precisely the opposite. It should have been not to fragment the previous legislation but to set it in the wider context of devolution for the whole of the United Kingdom. In that way only could the Government meet the fundamental illogicality of their proposals which has been pointed out in previous debates and in this debate by opponents and supporters of the legislation.
That central illogicality is that if devolution is about democracy—which is why I support it—what is good enough for the Scots and Welsh must be good enough for the English. Any other proposition exposes the well springs of the Government's position. The Government are frightened of nationalism but they are also frightened of democracy—of nationalism in Scotland and Wales and of democracy in England.
What is the Government's answer to that charge? It is to be found in the consultative document "Devolution: the English Dimension". This unfortunate document states baldly that
such an Assembly for England could damage the structure of the United Kingdom in ways


which the creation of a Scottish Assembly would not.
That is the fear. On what is it founded? It is founded on the belief that to have assemblies in all parts of the United Kingdom would amount in practice to a form of federation which would not fit the essential character of the United Kingdom as a union of four national components of different sizes.
The use of the word "national" gives the game away. It again indicates what motivates the Government—the fear of nationalism. If democracy were the objective, there would be no need to think in terms of devolution to England as a unit.
Why not consider legislative devolution to the English regions? The document said that it would mean that the legislative framework for such matters as education, health, housing, local government and land use would be determined largely at regional level. But is not this what is proposed for Scotland? If this is good enough for Scotland, why cannot the English be trusted with the same powers? Indeed, why cannot the Welsh, in this Bill, be entrusted with the powers that are to be accorded the Scots in the Bill to which we gave a Second Reading yesterday? The answer is that nationalist pressure is not yet powerful enough to force it upon the Government.
We have before us an illogical hodgepodge: legislative devolution for Scotland, administrative devolution for Wales and no devolution for England. That is why the Government have no answer to the "West Lothian problem"—the overweening powers of Scottish MPs in the United Kingdom Parliament after devolution and the right that those 71 will possess to vote on English affairs on matters over which, in the case of Scotland, English MPs will have no jurisdiction.
There is only one answer to that problem. It is an answer that has emerged more and more during the debates, and more and more it has come to the fore in speeches from both sides of the House. It is an answer which was easy to dismiss at one time, but as an increasing number of people begin to advocate it or show sympathy for it the Government cannot continue to disregard it. It is the federal

solution, or devolution for the whole of the United Kingdom.
That solution would also provide the route to solve what many of us on both sides of the argument have said is another major flaw in the legislation—the failure to accord fund-raising powers to the Assemblies. Since this was pointed out, the Government have produced a White Paper on financing the devolved services. I welcome the effort that they have made. This is not the occasion on which to discuss the White Paper in detail.
I believe that the reason why the Government found it impossible to advocate revenue-raising powers for the Assemblies was that they could not take the mental leap to the concept of devolution for the whole of the United Kingdom, which would have made it far easier to embrace a revenue-based system rather than an expenditure-based system.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend mean that there should be subordinate Parliaments in Newcastle, Derby, Leeds, Birmingham and Winchester?

Mr. MacFarquhar: Everyone in the Chamber, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), will have forgotten that he asked me precisely the same question at precisely the same point but in not quite the same speech that I made in the previous debate on Second Reading. The answer remains the same. It is "Yes".
It is clear why advocacy from people such as myself for devolution throughout the United Kingdom has not been heeded by the Government. It is because I possess no divisions. I have made clear that I shall support the Scottish and Welsh Bills because, however imperfect, they represent a foot in the door. Because my support can be assumed, my objections to these Bills can be shrugged off as niggles.
Ministers will say that this is not the case, that it is simply because there is no pressure for devolution in England. Perhaps that is so. But there will be a demand for devolution in England when the English wake up to the lopsided constitutional reform they have been given, when they realise the uneven distribution of powers between the English, Welsh and Scots MPs here after these measures have been passed.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the objections from parts of England such as the North-East and the North-West are precisely because of the relative advantages that these proposals will give to Wales?

Mr. MacFarquhar: The chickens will come home to roost exactly because of the realisation in the regions of England of what these measures will mean for the English regions, as my hon. Friend underlines.
I plead with my right hon. Friends to make the process of constitutional change upon which we are embarked logical and fair by starting now, even at this late date, to devise a system of devolution for England as well, to give true meaning to the phrase "the English dimension". If my right hon. Friends persist in fearing democracy as much as nationalism, nationalism will emerge as the only motive for devolution and that in turn could mean that nationalism, first in Scotland and then in Wales, might emerge triumphant and the United Kingdom could break up.
It is to late now to draw back. I have always argued that that could provoke disaster. But though these Bills are necessary for the preservation of unity, I do not believe that they are sufficient for that purpose. We should go forward in better order than in these two Bills. There should be an overall context of devolution for the whole United Kingdom. In fact, I am sure that the logic of constitutional change will impose itself on this Government and Parliament. The process cannot and will not be halted at the boundaries of Scotland and Wales. That is why I shall maintain my support for this measure tonight.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Ian Grist: The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) made a very reasonable case for a general constitutional change in Britain, and other speakers have done the same. But the hon. Gentleman spoilt his case by saying that he would support the Scotland and Wales Bills because they represented a foot in the door. I ask whose foot it is, but I know whose door it is. It the door of those who live in Scotland and Wales, and the foot in that door is the nationalist foot. That

door would not have been opened at all but for the supposed and feared success of the nationalists in the last few years.
The hon. Gentleman also said—this is something of which people in Wales and Scotland should take notice—that when the Assemblies in those two countries are set up the English will begin to wake up. He said that the chickens would then come home to roost. Indeed they will. That is the very point that has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that it is when the English wake up to precisely what has been done to them, their constitution and their House of Commons that the kick-back will come. Who will the smaller nations of Scotland and Wales be to stand up to the fury of the English when they decide to reform the constitution to their way of thinking and their advantage? That is what will happen at the end of the day.
In the past few months there has been a growing anger and growing testiness in Wales over what people see as an attempt to dragoon them, almost at times to bore them, into accepting the proposed expensive, unwanted, bureaucratic Assembly. After all, most of them had hoped and believed that with the demise of the Scotland and Wales Bill we had finally put the matter behind us and that by now we should be addressing ourselves to the matters that really worry them—jobs, the economy, the crime rate, education and so on. Instead of that, here we are again. Instead, the people will have to endure another dose of television programmes on devolution and another dose of pages and pages in their newspapers on this particularly boring, arid and dangerous subject.
Moreover, many of the people do not look forward to having to go through the rigours of a referendum campaign. Some people, including the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), argue that a referendum is essential if we are finally to quell that minority who are for ever demanding self-government for Wales.

Mr. Wigley: Hear, hear.

Mr. Grist: I said "a minority".
Such people as I have just described say that they will hold back their opposition to the Welsh Assembly until the referendum campaign, in the obvious


belief that they can hope for a clear "No" vote in the referendum, and that this will finally scotch the nationalists and those who demand the Assembly. That is a most dangerous course, and it is also rather odd when it is propounded by those who have refused to accept the result of the referendum on the EEC, because the people know that they do not respect that result.
That course is dangerous also because those who argue in this way do not seem to understand that many people still hold the decisions of Parliament in high regard. If Parliament has passed this Bill they may feel, and they will certainly be told, that it is quite safe and certainly in order for them, the voters, to approve it.
Finally, to condemn the Bill but to leave opposition to it until a referendum is to deny the rights and duties of hon. Members. Indeed, in certain quarters it might be thought to show a certain lack of courage, a lack of readiness to take decisions and stand by them. Certainly, it is no duty of Members of Parliament knowingly to pass bad laws in the hope that the electorate who sent us here will then show more determination and better judgment in refusing to accept them.
Various claims favouring the proposed Assembly have come from a variety of sources, not least Plaid Cymru and the Communist Party, which have no self-evident wish to perpetuate the unity of the kingdom. There have also been others who see as a reason for supporting the Assembly the suggestion that it will deal with the reform of the structure of local government. Putting aside whether such reform is needed or wise, which at the least is problematic and debateable, I must say that it has nothing to do with whether we should pass the Bill. If the Government want to reform Welsh local government, there is absolutely nothing, other than their own will, to prevent their doing so here and now.
Secondly, even if the Assembly as proposed comes into being, it will still be the Parliament at Westminster that will, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, pass the necessary legislation. It might be argued that all the donkey work would be done by the Assembly and that basically all that we should be called upon to do would be to put into legis-

lative form the Assembly's wishes. People would ask how we here at Westminster could stand up against that nationally-elected body, with all the prestige that it would carry. But that would be to turn this place into a rubber stamp. We are told that the House would not be giving up its rights. I suggest that this is a hopeless mish-mash. It shows the sort of conflict that would be bound to arise between the Assembly and this House.
It could easily happen that a Labour-controlled Assembly recommended a particular form of local government to a Tory-controlled House of Commons. That is a perfect example of a conflict that could and would arise. How would hon. Members feel about the constitutional conflict that would then face them?

Mr. Kinnock: Is not an even more likely scenario, since we are to have Labour Governments here for a long time to come. that, in the unlikely event of there being an Assembly in Cardiff after the referendum, a Labour Assembly submits to this House a set of expenditure proposals held to be self-evidently necessary to maintain decent, let alone advanced, standards of civilisation and that, because of pressures upon the Government by this Labour-dominated Parliament, a refusal is issued in categoric form not only denying people in general the opportunity to maintain standards but throwing back in their faces the nationally determined decision of a national Assembly of Wales? I suggest that that is a much more likely scenario than a contest over local government but, none the less, one that is destructive of any understanding between this Parliament and the Welsh people.

Mr. Grist: I am glad to have winkled out the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I was afraid that he might have felt that he had puffed himself out on the subject by speaking earlier. I suggest that the scenario that I was painting would he the more likely one to occur should an Assembly be established. In time scale, its first job would be to look at local government; but all along the way conflicts would arise.

Mr. Dalyell: I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman turns to Clause 72 he will


find the answer to his question, because it provides that
the Attorney General may institute, and the Assembly may defend, proceedings for the determination of any question whether anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is within its powers.
That would occupy every lawyer west of Offa's Dyke.

Mr. Grist: And there are many of them west of Offa's Dyke.
If, as a rubber stamp, we were to pass the Assembly's proposals, it would be a mockery of this place, of the post of the Secretary of State for Wales and of Welsh Members of Parliament. Therein lies the biggest hole in the Bill, as in the Scotland Bill. No attempt has been made at any stage—in the Scotland and Wales Bill, in the debates since in the country, in yesterday's debate or as yet in today's debate—to plug that hole: that should the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies come into being there would eventually have to be a major readjustment of the powers and numbers of Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament.
The Government recognise that in the well-quoted—it is a gold-mine—"Devolution: The English Dimension" White Paper. Paragraph 68, which I quoted last year and see no reason not to quote again, states:
The transfer to elected English regional bodies
the Welsh Assembly is the kind of elected regional body considered in the English White Paper
of powers at present exercised by Ministers (whether at a departmental headquarters or in a regional office) would have far-reaching constitutional implications. In particular it could directly reduce their ability to maintain national policies on devolved subjects, limit the rôole of Parliament and restrict the scope of the work of its Members.
That is the Government speaking in their own publication on devolution about such an elected body in England as they are proposing for Wales. They have never stated in the House the answer to their own objections for England as applied to Wales. I look forward with hope, but not much faith, to hearing something from the Minister this evening.
Clearly the people of Wales do not want their voice weakened at the seat of power in the United Kingdom.

Equally clearly it is not the intention of Ministers that such a change should occur. But until Ministers have dealt with this to rehearse the arguments all over again—everyone in the House knows them. But until Ministers have dealt with this point convincingly, both Bills are fatally flawed.
It is no good claiming that even if the Assemblies are established hon. Members elected to this House will still have equal rights and responsibilities as they have today. They would not be equal. Such a situation, being intolerable, would not be tolerated for long.
There can be no doubt that but for temporary and localised nationalist successes this Bill would not have been with us tonight. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) speaking on behalf of both nationalist parties, said last night on the Scottish Bill:
My party regards the Bill as the first step along the road to self-government."—[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 113.]
There we had it. Of course, there are hon. Members who believe that once the elected Assembly is established it will grow. That is the path along which we are being propelled. The same sort of statements are being made by the three hon. Members representing Plaid Cymru. We are being asked yet again to set off down a dangerous, expensive and unwanted road from which there is no turning back—only further advancement. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) pointed out in supporting the Bill that if an elected body is set up it will grow.
We were warned by Government Ministers, no less, that if we refused to pass the earlier Bill there could be serious consequences for civil peace and the continuation of the United Kingdom that would be frightening to behold. We were told that if the Bill was lost those appalling consequences would follow. There was a notorious advertisement in the Western Mail earlier this year which told us:
The need for a directly-elected Welsh Assembly, and the expectation that has been built up over the last 10 years"—
who by, I ask—
has reached the point whereby any frustration of that aspiration would dangerously threaten social harmony in Wales and relationships in Britain as a whole.


Whether that was intended as a sober prophecy or a thinly-disguised threat, nothing has happened since the last Bill was lost, and neither will it happen if we have the guts to kill this one as well.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East made an interesting speech tonight. He may remember saying in the debate on the amendment to the last Bill to delete Wales from the measure:
Certainly in my constituency it will be not the barricades but the flags that will go up if the amendment is carried."—[Official Report, 18th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 214.]
And so they would tomorrow if we defeated this Bill tonight. Nothing has changed in Swansea, or in any other part of Wales, unless it has been a further hardening of the opposition to the whole concept on a directly-elected assembly. The majority of the Welsh people expect us, as their elected representatives, to do our duty and throw out this dangerously misguided sop to nationalism.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I confess to a feeling of languor which has little to do with the hour and a great deal to do with the subject. The first time that we talked about it, when we entertained the Scotland and Wales Bill briefly last Session, it had a certain novel interest. It was as interesting as fishing for salmon in the Dovey. The exercise this evening has been about as interesting and productive as fishing for tuna in the Taff. I suspect that we shall have to do rather more of it as the months roll by, ending with a referendum which I certainly hope and confidently believe will crush this nonsense once and for all and, with it, the architects of it and the profiteers from it, the Welsh nationalists.
Whatever happens tonight and tomorrow night, victory will surely be ours. But we shall have some difficulty in explaining to the people of Wales the incredible waste of time and the incredible insensitivity of the Government to what they must surely know—because members of the Government are people who represent seats which are no different in any important respect from ours, in a country beset by the most enormous social and economic difficulties—is the most nominal support among the people for this constitutional

change. Indeed, even that has dwindled from the low point of popularity that it enjoyed earlier this year.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend so certain about the referendum result? Some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendeslon), think that the fact that Parliament legitimises something and the fact that the prestige of the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council will be put behind Parliament make the referendum outcome rather less certain than my hon. Friend seems to think.

Mr. Kinnock: I am familiar with the tactics of Governments. I spent some time last year trying to expose the Government's rather simplistic tactics—and they are still employing them—in attempting to accomplish as much as possible to give the impression to the people of Wales and Scotland that this legislation would be endowed with the authority and support of Parliament and, consequently, that the people were required to make a gesture of acceptance.
But I have rather more confidence in the discriminating ability of the people of Wales than in the strategic demands of my right hon. and hon. Friends. As a consequence, however much camouflage is conceived in the Lord President's office, however much the Government attempt to present this Bill as a fait accompli, however much it is dignified by the name of an Act and however much the impression is given that majorities like that enjoyed by the Scottish Bill last night convey any kind of general wholehearted sympathy, all that we have to do is to show the Bill in all honesty for what it is, as some sections of the Press have honestly done. I exempt the Western Mail from honesty in respect of the devolutionary cause. It is so hypnotised by it and by its own importance that it cannot be expected to tell the truth very directly. There are honourable and notable exceptions among its journalistic staff, but, unfortunately, they frequently stray from the path of objectivity in this matter, as in one or two others.
But I think that the people of Wales will have conveyed to them very strongly that in all the speeches that we heard


last night on Scotland, in all the speeches that we are hearing tonight on Wales, in all the speeches that we shall hear tomorrow and in all the speeches that we shall hear in Committee, there will be the tiniest flake of support falling from the Government's Back Benches. But among others who vote for it there will be no spontaneity of support for it. There will be no easy declaration of support for it. It is only the traditional loyalties of the party system that will convince members of the Labour Party to vote for it.
There is no Government Minister, however genuinely dedicated to the cause of devolution, who can pretend, if he makes any attempt at honesty, that the Bill has the support of most of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
What the Bill can obtain is reluctant and silent support in the Division Lobby, and that fact can be clearly communicated to the people of Wales. Even if it were not, the people's loyalty to their own destiny, their own interests and their own wishes supersedes even their traditional loyalty to the Labour Party and the great respect in which they hold people like my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Bill in its present form originated in the will of the Welsh Council of Labour as publicly expressed 13 years ago?

Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that the will expressed 13 years ago occupies an eminent place in the political consciousness of the Welsh nation. If my hon. Friend believes that, he will believe anything. As my hon. Friend is a Euro-fanatic and is mesmerised by the great opportunities that the Bill offers for self-determination, I do not expect that he will have been substantially influenced by considerations of a 13-year-old policy that was made before we had such sophisticated developments as a proper party conference every year in Wales.
I know that devolution is the policy of the Labour Party in Wales. In my last manifesto I inserted a line—to the eternal condemnation of my constituency party—about meaningful devolution and an Assembly. But anyone who regards the Bill as meaningful devolution, an attempt to convey real power to the people, to

safeguard their interests or to advance democracy or an encouragement to vigilant supervision of elected government at any level, is reading the wrong Bill. It has nothing to do with these purposes and everything to do with an attempt to overcome the nationalist upsurge in Scotland and Wales. Indeed, it is only a sliver of respectability in order to assist the passage of the Scottish proposals and to legitimise the Scottish proposals. The excuse of a 13-year-old commitment by the Labour Party in Wales was a useful tool.
It appears that there is a snake rattling on my right. If the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) wishes to intervene, he may do so, but he knows the proper way to do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I may have misheard the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), but "snake" is not a parliamentary expression.

Mr. Kinnock: I did not use the word "vermin" because of the acrimony which that caused in an earlier political generation. It would have been more precise, biologically, if I had said that an hon. Member was making a sound similar to that which emanates from a rattlesnake. However, perhaps we had better move on with devolution rather than evolution.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) said that the issue had been well ventilated. He is a master of understatement, because the Bill has had holes shot right through it. There can never have been anything in political history which has been better aerated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) quoted Marx and Morrison. I should have preferred him to quote Bevin, who once said: "If you open that Pandora's Box, you will find it full of Trojan horses." That conveys my feelings on devolution precisely.
A major matter of contention has been the parliamentary and national implications of constructing three distinctly different forms of government for England, Scotland and Wales. I think that my hon. Friends accept, as other hon. Members accept, that this has major implications for the whole conduct of the government of the United Kingdom.
I have the deepest affection for my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey. He is well known as one of


the finest political handlers in this House. Indeed, he is known in Wales as the Barry John of politics. Among his qualities is the absence of gullibility but certainly the presence of idealism. I give him full credit for that. He showed just how idealistic he is capable of being by saying that the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland and from Wales in the House of Commons should remain the same. He listed several reasons why it should remain the same, including the way that we shall collect revenues continually, the way that we shall make expenditures, even under the proposals in the Bill, and the fact that we have common threads of interest stretching, even after devolution, to the people of England, Scotland and Wales and their representatives. They are all very good reasons, which I entirely accept.
But what should happen in my right hon. Friend's estimation, and in my estimation and, indeed, in the hopes and dreams of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), the Lord President, in the guaranteed integrity and unity of the United Kingdom may well not come to pass. That is not because the Scottish National Party will command a majority and take Scotland away, still less because Plaid Cymru will achieve that eminence in a Welsh Chamber. It will be because the people of England, acknowledging the fact that Wales and Scotland are in perpetual public expenditure deficit with the English taxpayers, and acknowledging the fact that these people and their representatives present a continual impediment to the English and have a status, stature and power that they do not earn through the exercise of responsibility and accountability to the English people, will seek to cast Scotland and Wales adrift.
At this point I could pause for cheers from the SNP and Plaid Cymru. However, perhaps they are much more interested in striving than in arriving. They may be more interested in talking about and agitating for separation than actually achieving that ignoble state. They know, and they must acknowledge, that their preposterous ideas of economic self-dependence, in any degree of economic separation and the consequences that go with it, would mean utter misery for the people of both Scotland and Wales.
This matter is not something of which, in the circumstances of continual nationalist assault, the people of England, who have hitherto been tolerant of the public expenditure deficits, can be expected to be perpetually tolerant. By misrepresenting the aspirations of the Scottish and Welsh people, it may be that nationalism will draw down the vengeance of the English people on the heads of the Scottish and Welsh people.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the disproportionate share of public expenditure that Scotland and Wales enjoy might be due to the social and economic disadvantages that they endure?

Mr. Kinnock: Of course. We have had all this out before. My children are reciting it as a nursery rhyme. There is no need for any Welshman or Scotsman to apologise in any sense whatsoever for that deficit. Indeed, it should be bigger because of the needs of those areas. They have been similarly afflicted, for exactly the same reasons as have other areas of Britain, including the North-East and the North-West. Be they demographic or geographic reasons, historical or economic reasons, perhaps political reasons, or reasons of capitalism or bureaucracy, whatever the reasons for that deficit happen to be, they should not be the cause of apology or shame. They should be a source of inspiration and demand.
The problems behind those reasons will not be solved by constitutional tricks. They will be solved by political decisions and economic policies. There is no guarantee in the Wales Bill or the Scotland Bill, or in anything that will come after them, whether in the imagination of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey or in the hopes of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, that any one of those problems can be removed or even significantly affected or reduced in either Scotland or Wales.
The possibility is that, out of the very instrument intended to give a greater voice and a greater meaning to democracy in Scotland and Wales, we shall find democracy baffled in the resentments that grow as a consequence of the contests built into this Bill between the peoples of the areas of Britain. If my right hon. Friend has not got it right now, I will say it to him again when we get


another opportunity to debate the Bill. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham may not, I realise, be present during considerable parts of the discussion on the Bill. If he will save up his questions for the time when he visits this country, when he has left his other responsibilities, I shall be glad to reply to him. I want to get on with my speech.
I come to the question of federalism. I warned last year, as did others, that the federalist argument would develop as the devolutionary argument went on—but not because there was a spontaneous enthusiasm for federalism. Indeed, the experience of many federalist States is not just that it is an incompetent and wasteful form of government, necessitating the creation of new forms of government such as supreme courts, but that it is no guarantee against separatism. Anyone who has watched developments in Canada, with the Quebec Front, will acknowledge that.
Even the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and others like him, who may seek a certain kind of refuge from the implications of devolution in trying to spread the devolutionist word and who call for federalism, can find no real refuge there, because we do not bottle up nationalism even by accommodating it in the form of federalism. It cannot be bottled up. It has to be killed by the education of minds and the exposure of its idiocies, not by trying to accommodate it in any general sphere.
If we want a general democratic change, if we want a regional or sub-regional form of government or a national division of government, let us approach it on that basis. Let us not dress it up by words of half-meaning such as "federalism". Let us not, for God's sake, have federalism by default or because we cannot think of a way of accommodating the inconsistencies and paradoxes of a Scottish, Welsh and English system of government within the British system. Let us have a federalist argument by all means, but let us not confuse it with this argument because the two are entirely separate. That is not an academic consideration.
I turn to finance and the block grant. This is a source of strife in two respects. It is obviously a source of strife between the Welsh Assembly and the British Parliament because the purse strings

must, and will, remain here. It is also a source of strife because it diminishes our right to have as many Members of Parliament as we now have. This would come at a time when the Welsh voice and Welsh pressure is becoming even more necessary in this House, because of the power of this House to allocate finances to a Welsh Assembly. We shall be diminishing our voice, numerically if in no other way.
Inside Wales, people talk about the way in which culture can flourish. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) spoke of the way in which culture could flourish in Wales in the event of an Assembly. I will tell the hon. Member what will happen in a Welsh Assembly which, even on a rough proportional basis, will be dominated by people representing the English-speaking industrial proletariat of South Wales. The consequences of that will be that the Budget of the Assembly will not account for £12 million spent over any period of time on Welsh road signs—not that I think that that makes a significant contribution to the growth of the Welsh laguage. The Assembly certainly will not commit as much as is now committed to development of the language through the educational system, through books or through support for Welsh libraries. I would regret that. I support the expenditure of every halfpenny given by this Parliament for the development of the Welsh language.
Because, however, of the cramped considerations of the limited finances and the tight priorities of the Welsh Assembly, the Welsh language will come at the bottom of a long list of priorities. There are also considerations of regional and sub-regional interests. Superimposed on the Welsh people will be the contest between the industrial need and the agricultural, rural need. Superimposed on them will be the contest between educational and health needs.
There is not in this Bill, or in any proposed constitution for the Welsh Assembly, a satisfactory means of resolving those needs in a way that will be advantageous and mutually acceptable to the people of Wales or will advance the general national interest. I say to the hon. Member that if he wants to develop the Welsh language and Welsh culture, if he wants to stop the emigration of


young people from Wales, he should not look for the answers in this Bill. He will not find them. The answers will be found in economic policy, in political commitment, in political decision, in the use of English money for the development of Wales—if we have to put it in such a nationalistic fashion. They will not be found in a set of principles born out of expendiency, developed in panic and eventually smashed in a referendum.
Next, I take the question of local government reform. This has been dealt with adequately by hon. Members on both sides. Clause 13—the number may be lucky for some—is a brief clause, an insertion to legitimise an argument which has been lost:
The Assembly shall review the structure of local government in Wales and shall report its conclusions to the Secretary of State.
Plainly, there is no need first to have a devolution Bill in order to sponsor an examination of Welsh local government. If we want local government reform in Wales, I am sure that my hon. Friends and I, resentful as we are of the waste and nonsense of the Tory reform—we have heard all the phrases—could take ourselves upstairs and sit in Committee for a week or so, with a predominantly Welsh Labour majority, and vote ourselves a whole new structure for local government, and the word "devolution" would not even have to be mentioned. Least of all should we need to pass a Bill such as this to occupy the time of the House hour after hour and week after week in this Session as a boring irrelevance for the people of Wales.
If we want local government reform, we can go right out and do it. There is nothing to stop us. There is certainly nothing inspiring in this Bill. There will be competent persons available as Members of the Assembly, people with knowledge of local government. I have among them personal friends, good comrades, people well experienced in local government and with the highest motivation and the strongest Socialist conscience. After they have gone into the question of local government reform, they will send a big thick letter to the Secretary of State, he will bring it back here, and off we shall go upstairs to a Committee to decide on local government reform in proceedings conducted by Welsh Members of Parlia-

ment. What nonsense. What a duplication. What a wasteful business. And what destruction of any purpose will be done in that process. A proposal of that kind cannot legitimise this document.
I come now to the referendum. Of course, had it not been for the referendum proposal, accepted by my right hon. Friends, the Bill would have been killed in any case because it would not have been worth keeping alive. The opportunities still present themselves, and those who have a vested interest in the survival of the Bill permitted the opportunity of a referendum when it was demanded. I make no apology for it. I am well aware that we have given a hostage to fortune. But, at the time when we insisted upon the referendum, it was the only course open to us, the only way of inspiring the opposition in the Welsh people and giving them confidence that there was something on which their instinctive reaction against this proposal for devolution could be built.
That was the importance of the referendum proposal. It was a strictly political idea, and behind it, of course, is the idea of giving the people of Wales a final say and—to use words which I have used before—not so much stifling devolution, which we could do in the House quite adequately, but killing it for ever. I believe that to be a direct and real possibility, and people familiar with the political situation in Wales know that it is a direct and real possibility.
I do not take refuge behind the referendum. I want to see it conducted in the fairest possible way. I believe that the Government can make a gesture in that direction—I am sure that they want to conduct it in the fairest possible way—by deleting the preamble to the referendum.
This is not a little procedural trick. It is important. The preamble is precipitate, presumptuous and totally unnecessary. It can only invite unnecessary argument and irrelevant contest. It contributes nothing to the conduct of the referendum and nothing to the conduct of the debate. There is no reason why it should not be struck out.
I ask my right hon. Friends to make a gesture to show their belief in the confidence and trust that the people of Wales are supposed to have in devolution. They must believe that, otherwise they would not be trying to put this irreversible


change over the Welsh people. They believe that there is a majority for it.
The Government should make a gesture towards the fair conduct of the referendum by undertaking at the earliest possible time to delete the preamble so that the plain question is asked of the people of Wales. There will he further debates over the question. They might become increasingly important, but the deletion of the preamble is of great significance.
It is sad that we have had to return to this point once again, but I suppose it was inevitable given the kind of impetus behind the Government's commitment to devolution. There are opportunities for the Government, by conducting affairs as clearly as possible, to make that contribution to political and public education in Wales so that when the referendum comes the people will have the plainest possible idea of precisely what are the proposals.
Let no one hide behind the idea that we can have our devolutionary cake and eat our centralist bread, that we can have the powers of devolution that others are said to envy. If anyone does that, he is a fool because he has not read the Bill. Others are said to envy the continued representation of 36 Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Let no one pretend that we can go on having public expenditure inputs and the deficits that we continue, to run without provocation to English people who pay and meet that Bill.
Let us not be subservient or apologetic about those facts. Let us present them to the Welsh people as reasonable voting citizens, and let them make their evaluation, with our voices trying to articulate those beliefs, trying to be in the educational process, trying to convince people of these political things. We shall serve the cause of the unity of the kingdom by doing that on an open basis, by exposing and destroying those who for petty political ends and antediluvian national imposes seek to profiteer out of the economic resentment of the people. If we do that, we shall provide a real service to the conduct of good government in this country. If any refuge is taken, any issues are dodged or any pretence is made that a brick will be put on another brick, that

a hospital bed will be provided or that the emigration of youngsters will be stopped by this Bill, the whole proposition and the reputation and trust of the Government could be drowned in the laughter of disbelief of the Welsh people.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Geraint Morgan: In the observations that I intend to make in this debate, I propose to apply to myself that self-denying ordinance that was called for some time ago and has been observed by some.
I think I can fairly claim that I have always been a keen supporter of administrative devolution in Wales, and I have no objection in principle to regional or even federal assemblies if there is a genuine public demand for them. Nevertheless, I feel that the present Bill is badly misconceived, particularly at the present time. Indeed, the only provision in it that I welcome with any enthusiasm is that contained in Clause 83 which, of course provides for the holding of a consultative referendum, a subject to which I shall return.
It is a sad and inescapable fact that the present Bill is in no way based upon a realistic assessment of the wishes of the Welsh people but is born purely of what has been so aptly described by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) as political expediency and opportunism. I am pleased to borrow the hon. Gentleman's English phrase, although I regret his deep distrust of anyone who speaks the Welsh language.
I would be the last person to blame the present Government alone for errors and mistakes with regard to devolution in Wales. In a moment I shall make a criticism of my own party's past in that respect. Let me first, however, correct one thing that was said by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), who embarked upon a highly inaccurate excursus into Welsh political history. He would not give the Conservative Party credit for anything at all in the field of devolution. Let me say this. The first tentative and modest steps—they were tentative; they were modest, but they were the very first—were taken by a Conservative Government in 1951. Nothing had been done by the Labour Party


during its high tide of power between 1945 and 1951. Nothing had been done by the Liberals during their years of office.
Now let me come to the criticism. I think it is a regrettable thing that, having made a good if modest beginning, the Conservative Party during its period of power set its face against the creation of a Welsh Office and a Welsh Secretary of State. I speak with some feeling on the point because I think I was the only one on these Benches for many years who in fact supported the call for a Welsh Secretary of State, and I believe that I was the only Conservative candidate who in the General Elections of 1959 and 1964 said in his election address that he was firmly in favour of such a development.
That there was at the time—I am talking now of the late 1950s and early 1960s—very substantial support for the setting up of a Welsh Office, more or less on the model which had existed in Scotland since 1886, there can be no doubt. The support that existed for a Welsh Office at that time is in marked contrast to the lack of enthusiasm for an Assembly at the present time. There can be no doubt, I think, that the Labour Party gained greatly in the 1966 General Election, when it achieved a peak in Wales in terms of votes and seats which it is never likely to achieve again, because of its action in creating a Welsh Department of State during the short-lived 1964–66 Parliament.
I for one give the Labour Party credit for what it did then, but I am afraid that my judgment on what it did thereafter must be much less favourable. To begin with, of course, the Welsh Office thus created was entrusted with very little real power. Its functions initially were effectively limited to surveillance of roads and local government organisation, and I make no doubt that it was this coyness in providing the infant Welsh Office with any real muscle that was responsible, in part at any rate, for the crushing reversal of fortune for the Labour Party in the Carmarthen constituency between the General Election of 1966 and the historic by-election a few months later, when a majority of almost five figures was wiped out by the victory of the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
Of course, it was the panic engendered by that defeat, together with the corresponding one at Hamilton the following year, and by near misses in by-elections in the Rhondda, West and Caerphilly by-elections of 1968, that was responsible for the Crowther—later the Kilbrandon—Commission on the Constitution. Its appointment was clearly a sop to the nationalist movements, and I venture to think that the then Prime Minister, when he brought it into being, never gave much thought to the possibility that he would have to face up to and deal with its report, the presentation of which was then a far distant prospect. As it turned out, of course, he was hoist with his own petard and this Bill's predecessor last year was the result.
In short, just as the Conservatives can fairly be criticised for resisting the creation of a Welsh Office and the Labour Party can be criticised for its initial slowness in transferring functions to it, so must the Government now stand condemned for taking a step which goes far beyond the demands of the Welsh people, so far as they can be fairly ascertained, and for which enthusiasm cannot even be said to be half-hearted.
So far as Wales is concerned, there is one thing of which we can be quite sure. The type of Assembly envisaged by the Bill will please very few people indeed. To those—probably a majority—who are reasonably satisfied with the present system of administration based on London, the whole thing will be a monstrous and costly bureaucratic intrusion. To those who are genuinely in favour of a devolved Assembly—and I concede that they exist in all political parties, including my own—the proposals will not go nearly far enough. I can readily foresee acrimonious squabbles on that score if an Assembly ever comes into being. Therefore, I cannot agree with the observation of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) that the Bill carries no threat whatsoever to our unitary State.
Both the points of view that I have mentioned were well illustrated by the result of a public opinion poll in Wales just under a year ago, when the ill-fated Scotland and Wales Bill was being introduced. According to the poll, a very substantial minority was opposed


to the creation of an Assembly, but most of the same people expressed the view that, if one were to be established, it should enjoy considerably greater powers than those proposed in that Bill—and, we may reasonably infer, in this one.
That apparent paradox was seized upon by some to support the quite untenable argument that a majority in Wales was, after all, in favour of an Assembly, which was, of course, not the case at all. My own view is, and always has been, that there cannot be any permanent half-way house between our present system of administration and a regional or federal Parliament. Once we set out on this road, therefore, we must accept that a regional or federal legislative body will probably be the ultimate result. That should give us cause to pause in Wales.
Quite frankly, the Welsh Office has not as yet been given much chance to prove itself as a Department of State, excellent work though it has done in many spheres. It has not been in existence for much more than a decade, and it has enjoyed powers of any substance for a much shorter time than that. That being so, I think that the Conservative Party's policy of strengthening the Welsh Office—I concede that it is a full-circle turn from its attitude of 15 years ago—now probably best represents the wishes of the Welsh people. Of course, we can never please everyone in this respect. We can never achieve anything approaching unanimity.
I am reminded of the decision of a famous French statesman just over a century ago after the conclusion of the disastrous war with Germany. The new French Assembly was faced with a considerable choice in the form of a future Government. It could continue the republic created during the war, it could recreate the Bonapartist empire, it could restore the senior branch of the Bourbons or it could have the Orleanists back. This leading statesman—I think that his name was Favre—said "I am a monarchist, but I am going to support the republic because it is the form of government that will divide Frenchmen least". When all is said and done, I think that the present system of administration under the Welsh Office is the form of administration that will divide Welshmen least.
My last word will be with regard to the proposal for a referendum. I am glad that it appears in the Bill rather than it should not appear at all, but I can see no good reason, particularly after our experience with the Scotland and Wales Bill, why the referendum should not take place before any serious legislative exercise is entered upon. As Welsh Members will be well aware, that point has been made in a recent letter from the Association of County Councils.
At the time of the Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill just under a year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) expressed the view that an early referendum would be premature and that the public should have the advantage of hearing our discussions in the House before one was held. I did not agree with my hon. Friend then and I agree with him even less now. Perhaps he has changed his mind on the issue himself. I doubt very much whether the average elector pores over copies of Hansard before recording his vote in a referendum. I am sure that there was no exhaustive study of our interminable debates on the European Communities Bill by more than a microscopic minority of those who voted in the Common Market referendum in 1975.
However, assuming that there is anything in this point, surely there was enough discussion in this House at the end of last year and early this year, before the Scotland and Wales Bill finally ran into the sand, for the electorate to derive such guidance as it is minded to take. An early referendum has everything to recommend it. If it rejects the concept of an Assembly, it can be decently buried; if it approves it, the details will be approached in this House in a much more constructive spirit. On the other side of the coin, a long discussion in this House, ending up with a possible—indeed, probable—rejection of the proposals in a referendum, would mean a great waste of legislative time and turn the whole parliamentary process into something of a farce.
I must put one question about the referendum, and I do so because of the Government's past equivocation on this issue. Is it intended that the result of it should be binding? I appreciate that the form of Clause 83 has to be as it is for reasons of constitutional practice—it has to be


that which is appropriate for a consultative referendum. But I have in mind that when the Government, at the eleventh hour, about a year ago, agreed to a referendum in relation to the earlier Bill, they indicated that it would be a mandatory one, although they subsequently changed their mind and said that it would be consultative after all. I would like a decisive answer on that point.
I am personally of the view that this is a subject upon which a referendum should be held in any event, and independently of the Bill. With the report of the Kilbrandon Commission and the discussions which have so far taken place in this House, the issue has gone much too far for it satisfactorily to be disposed of in any other way. The message should, of course, go forth from this House that the result of a referendum, it and when it is held, will be absolutely binding. If that is so, it will be one that all Welsh people of good will can, and should, loyally accept.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: Over the years, in the early 1960s particularly, I used to feel very annoyed when I discovered that so many of our decisions were being taken by faceless people who had been appointed or selected by some mysterious means to take decisions on spending so much of our money, and that these people were out of reach. They were people we could not get at to influence their decisions in any way.
I was therefore particularly glad when I found the Welsh Council of Labour coming round to the view that we had to do something about it and that it put into concrete form its ideas of an elected council for Wales. There has been discussion today of the terminology, but whether it be called "Council" or "Assembly" I do not care; it is the body at the end of the day that matters.
I feel that we have now come to the very sensible conclusion that we ought also to assist the Secretary of State. It used to disturb me that so many decisions were being taken in the Welsh Office by very worthy people, very able civil servants, but by the wrong people, because I could never believe that the

Secretary of State, even with two assistants, could afford sufficient time to scrutinise those decisions sufficiently thoroughly—and certainly we in this place do not scrutinise them sufficiently thoroughly. So I give a warm welcome to the proposals in the Bill in order to advance the cause of democracy, if for nothing else.
Some people want more, some believe that the Bill goes too far. I believe that the formula is just about right. I cannot understand what all the hysteria is about. The Bill is such a modest measure. Why it has created such a furore, I cannot understand.
I have two minor criticisms. The first is on the question of finance. It is a pity that we have not succeeded in finding a formula whereby the Assembly could raise a fraction of its own finance. I think that we shall have to set our minds to that and eventually come round to it. Some people want the Assembly to be able to raise its own finance on the ground that this would make it more responsible, and there is some validity in that argument. The Assembly would be down-graded if it had to go through its life without the possibility of raising finance. It would be the only body without that means. After all, we allow community councils to raise finance through the rates.
The other weakness involves having to wait for local government reform. I have argued for this for a long time. We should be putting our minds to producing some measure of local government reform at the same time. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is some merit in asking the Assembly to consider this issue. The fears that have been generated in the Chamber today are ill founded. Those who generate the fear know that the eventual reform will be decided in this building but that we shall take the advice of the Assembly.
I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) when he said that the opponents of Welsh devolution are often opponents of the present local government structure in Wales. They are afraid of any more changes because they hated the last change. They are anxious about what we may produce. We should assure them that we intend to do something about local government.
There is a preoccupation among hon. Members about their own position and power. They are jealous of losing some of their powers. Hon. Members have asked what they will do after devolution. They asked whether they would be able to raise certain Questions in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) mentioned his Adjournment debate on the closure of a hospital in his constituency. Surely, if we had an Assembly it would not be necessary to raise that subject here. The issues might be argued more sensibly in the Assembly.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said that we should pass the Bill and leave the final decision to a referendum. Many hon. Members support that view because they argue that the people should decide. They are honest in that view, but it ill becomes the hon. Member for Pembroke to try to prevent the people from deciding by opposing the Bill. I do not like the idea of a referendum, but those who argue for a referendum are inconsistent if they do not urge that the Bill should be passed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) talked about undermining the sovereignty of Parliament and the loss of powers for hon. Members. That is an interesting argument, particularly since it comes from an hon. Member who, in another argument about the loss of sovereignty, accepted it happily. I can understand someone who supports the EEC but I cannot understand someone who supports that concept arguing about the loss of sovereignty in this context. Surely my hon. Friend can accept that a little sovereignty should go to a Welsh Assembly.
My hon. Friend also complained about the cost of an Assembly. Who does he think pays for that paraphernalia in Europe? Democracy is not cheap; it has to be paid for. If my hon. Friend wants to save money, let us abolish local government. We could save a lot of money there.
Most organisations have their Welsh dimensions. All the trade unions, the CBI and even the Tory Party have their Welsh dimensions. If they can have it, we should recognise the need for a Welsh

dimension in a democratically-elected body that takes decisions for us.

Dr. Colin Phipps: The West Midlands does not have such a thing.

Mr. Roderick: If the West Midlands wants it, let it ask for it. It has not asked. The people of Wales have been shouting for this for some time. I wish the Bill God-speed.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I do not wish to trouble the House with the general arguments so eloquently advanced from both sides of the House up to the time when we strangled the last devolution Bill. Two new points have emerged, however.
There is the interesting Government proposal for regional offices of the National Enterprise Board in the North-East and the North-West. That was a crude and obvious form of bribery of those two regions. Its aim was to reconcile them to devolution in Scotland.
Where does that process end? My constituency is not far from Wales. It has been much affected by regional policies perpetrated by successive Governments. What happens when this puffed-up county council succeeds in getting more State aid than, for instance, Shropshire? Will that mean Shropshire Members coming to this House and asking for regional office of the NEB to be located at Telford? Will they be claiming that the Welsh Assembly, because it claims to have extra special powers, is being bought off by being given a better deal than Shropshire?
I do not doubt that that will come about. I do not doubt either that the inherent instability and the inherent potential for conflict which all of us have noted so often in the whole devolution mechanism will occur with Wales, and that the time will come when the Welsh Assembly has a row with the Westminster Parliament.
Then it will be said that, there is a mechanism in Clause 72 by which these matters can be judicially decided. But no doubt some subtle politician will suggest that the matter can be resolved by giving the Welsh a good slice of taxpayers' money. It may be that Shropshire will say that, if Wales can be given that


money, Shropshire should be given at least a lesser slice. A regional office of the NEB will then be set up in Telford. Wolverhampton will then complain that regional policies are disadvantageous to it. Another regional office will be set up there. Birmingham will complain, and it will get a regional office. So it will go throughout the country. We shall see one more extension of State activity, one more distortion, one more attempt to suggest that all the country's problems can be solved by yet more State intervention, interference and subsidy and by the politicisation of our society and economy.
I regard all this as a disturbing, corrupting influence which has occurred simply because we have abandoned the proposition that we should rule the whole United Kingdom and should not attempt to buy off and placate particular sectional interests or regions.
My second point is on an even more disturbing matter. It concerns the way in which hon. Members from all quarters of the House seem now to regard the referendum as a useful mechanism for getting themselves individually off the hook. It does not seem to be fashionable now for a politician to say "It is my job to make up my mind." It does not seem to be fashionable for a politician to say "It is my job to crystallise public opinion, to put forward a point of view and allow the people to decide at a General Election." It seems now that it is fashionable to say "I hate this Bill. I loathe every part of it, but I shall vote for it in the knowledge that the matter will be decided at a referendum." That is the greatest irresponsibility.
Here I must respectfully disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan), who asked whether the referendum would be mandatory. I suppose he meant that it should be binding upon Members of Parliament. It neither can be nor should be. Indeed, I would say to those who are continuing to fight the decision in the 1975 Common Market referendum that they are doing exactly what they should. They are carrying out their constitutional duty.
Of course, an hon. Member should give way to the weight of arguments. We all find ourselves to be wrong, even on

great issues, and are convinced by argument. But we are not convinced by brute force of numbers, which is what the referendum mechanism tries to do. It says to us not "You were wrong on the arguments. You gave too much weight to a particular point" but "You are in a minority and, therefore, you must be wrong" It is the total abdication of parliamentary responsibility, the total abdication of our unique and important position as representatives and not as delegates.
Therefore, I hope that Labour Members will cease to deny themselves the unique dignity given to them as they were elected to this House, and that they will no longer say that their responsibility can in some way be evaded because there may be referendums after the passage of this Bill or the Scotland Bill. It is our responsibility, our duty, to take a risk, to put our judgment before the people. It is not enough simply to say "I leave it to the people, and so long as enough people take a view about this we shall throw the matter to them."
It is said by many on the Opposition Benches that the whole constitutional mechanism of the referendum has been enhanced by the 1975 referendum campaign. I cannot believe it. I voted for our staying in Europe, and I campaigned for that in what I can only describe as the most anti-Common Market constituency on the Tory side. I was amazed at the number of people who said—I cannot in this House use their exact words—that they did not understand the issues but that if the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was in favour of coming out they were in favour of staying in. That is an amusing argument, but it hardly indicates that the great issues had been carefully considered. It is hardly the sort of argument that should have overwhelming force upon the mind of an hon. Member who is elected as a representative and not as a delegate. Is it the sort of argument that should be deciding great issues?
Therefore, I hope that it will no longer be said on the Opposition Benches that the referendum has been enhanced and has become the great new constitutional mechanism to get us off the hook whenever we are in trouble. I hope that


tonight, and more importantly tomorrow, there will be no more talk about leaving it to the referendum.

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), who is no longer in his place, described the Bill as a moderate measure. I should describe it as a pitiable measure.
It is amazing that this House should have wasted so much of its time last Session and is proposing to waste its time this Session considering this piece of legislation. Indeed, it is not only amazing but in some sense tragic when we consider the real problems in Wales: the problems in the steel industry at Port Talbot, Shotton, and even Ebbw Vale, the problem of unemployment and the problem of depopulation in North Wales. These issues are not tackled in the Bill. It makes no contribution to those issues. The Bill is a time waster for this House and a money waster for the country. It merely seeks to build up another stratum of bureaucracy covering Wales—an additional glorified county council. For the people of Wales, it will cost more money and it will achieve nothing.
The Bill is a sort of tit-bit to Plaid Cymru. That does not mean that it is a tit-bit to Welsh nationalism. Plaid Cymru has nothing to do with the real nationalistic spirit in Wales. There is a genuine nationalism in Wales, but it has nothing to do with any political party.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) suggested that this measure would ultimately open the door to devolution for Britain as a whole. I suggest that no one can seriously believe that it will lead to regional government. If we ever see this pitiable proposal in operation in Wales and in Scotland, I feel sure that other parts of the country will not want to follow suit.
I do not share the fears expressed by some of my hon. Friends that this measure will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. This glorified Welsh county council will not contribute to the break-up of the United Kingdom. It is not something that other areas will envy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said, this proposal can only

create problems for the people of Wales and of Scotland.
I am aware—it has been made clear to me in a great deal of correspondence from Wales in recent weeks—that the Government have a manifesto commitment to this proposal. Many of us who have for many years fought to make Governments accountable to their manifesto commitments find ourselves in a great deal of difficulty in this sort of situation. Of course it is true that we have moved on somewhat, and there is now a commitment from the Government that they will place weight on the result of the referendum. Some of us feel that the referendum is being held at the wrong time. The time for a decision by the people should be before the Bill becomes an Act.
Nevertheless, in spite of a late referendum, the difficulties that have been referred to and the shilly-shallying about the questions in or the methods of the referendum, I believe that the people of Wales haye too much good sense to be deceived by any preamble or shilly-shallying of this sort. Therefore, it is quite wrong of us at this stage to try to prevent the Welsh people from being allowed to make a decision. I believe that they will make that decision, and that will be the end of political nationalism in Wales. I believe that when these proposals are put to the people of Wales they will say that they want nothing of them.

1.1 a.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: This is the third full-scale debate on the Government's proposals for Wales within a year. In each of the first two debates, the Government's proposals were subjected to the most severe criticisms from all parts of the House. Yet in presenting the measure once again, they have made no fundamental change in the proposals. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Bill has been subjected once more to similar criticism, and we have had the same failure to deal with the substance of such criticism.
The reason for this is that the Government are lacking in the one central requirement for constitutional legislation to be successful. They are lacking the fundamental requirement of clarity of purpose. The proposals before the House tonight have all the hallmarks of lacking the


clarity of purpose that they should have. They have, instead, a fundamental confusion of purpose in the Government's mind.
We are seeing tonight a juggling of two purported purposes. On the one hand, the Government present the Bill as a sort of modest administrative reform—a method of improving the government of Wales. On the other hand, it is a sort of gradual admission that really the Bill is a political response to nationalism. Therefore, by pretending that it is a method of improving the government of Wales on the one hand and recognising it as a political response to nationalism on the other, the measure carries conviction as a reflection of neither.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has charged the Government with lack of clarity and qualification. What qualification has he for winding up a major debate on Welsh affairs? Is not a Welshman capable of doing the job?

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. He purports or pretends to be a believer in the unity of the United Kingdom. If he really thinks that by making remarks of that kind he is furthering the United Kingdom, he is unworthy of the high office he has held. It is disgraceful.
Even more damaging than the fundamental ambiguity between the Government's claim that this is a measure of administrative reform and that it is a political response to nationalism is that the Government have failed to think through the effects of their proposals on the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom as a whole and that they have failed to provide viable solutions to the problems posed by the effects of their proposals on the government of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is the uneasy ambivalence of purpose combined with the lack of constitutional foresight which vitiates these proposals.
Despite the intervention to which we were subjected by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), the Government at least have the honesty to admit that there are consequences for the United Kingdom as a whole in proposals of this kind. They have published a

Green Paper on the English dimension of their devolution proposals, they have invited suggestions for ways of dealing with the English dimension of those proposals and they are continuing their consultations. But they have not come to a conclusion. They have presented this Bill and yesterday's Bill to the House without working out, even after a year of further deliberation, how to deal with the English dimension.
All that the Government have said is that they will propose to create subdivisions of the National Enterprise Board for the North-East and the North-West. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, these are blatant sops in an attempt to allay the fears which have been expressed in the North-East and North-West of England about the consequences of these proposals and cannot be presented as a serious attempt to work out a proper solution to the implications of these proposals which, they admit, exist for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Quite apart from the specific English dimension to which I have referred, quite apart from leaving the future of England high and dry after the enactment of the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, what are the consequences for the present system of government of the United Kingdom?
One of the main points to have come across again and again in this debate from Welsh Members—largely from Welsh Labour Members, who must be presumed to know about these matters—is that, if this Bill is got through, there will be less work for them to deal with in terms of matters which affect their constituencies most and that in whole areas of education, health and housing they will no longer be able to ask Questions of Ministers in this House dealing with the administration of those matters. In the words of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), their rôole will be impoverished. They will be politically enfeebled. In terms of their rôole in this House, nothing will be the same for them again.
In addition, and quite apart from the diminution of the rôole of Welsh Members in looking after the affairs of their constituents—because those affairs will be looked after to a great extent by the Welsh Assembly—there is the factor which was referred to yesterday as the "West Lothian


question." It is a point which arises in the case of Wales just as much as it does in Scotland. It will not be tolerable for any length of time for Welsh and Scottish Members to have a key decision-making power on matters affecting English education, health and housing. Not only has this point not been answered by the Government. They have not even attempted to answer it.
The reason why the Government have not even attempted to answer it is perhaps that the best expression of it is to be found in the Government's own document, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) pointed out. In "Devolution: The English Dimension", there is a reference to the effect of the creation of English regional bodies, which is exactly parallel to the creation of the Welsh Assembly. The Government's own document says, in paragraph 68:
The transfer to English elected regional bodies of powers at present exercised by Ministers … would have far-reaching constitutional implications. In particular it could directly reduce their ability to maintain national policies on devolved subjects, limit the role of Parliament and restrict the scope of the work of its Members.
These are all points of criticism that have been made, and they are to be found succinctly in the Government's own White Paper.
It is not surprising that we who are concerned about the future and unity of the United Kingdom should say that. if legislation such as this is enacted, the position of Welsh Members will become so anomalous that pressure to reduce their numbers is likely to become irresistible. We are not advocating that, but if legislation is introduced with such constitutional defects we cannot blind ourselves to the consequence of those defects on the pressure for a reduction in the number of Welsh Members. We would not welcome that, but we cannot ignore its likelihood.
Many argue that the chief protagonist for Wales in getting a fair share of resources is the Secretary of State for Wales, who can argue with his colleagues in the Cabinet. Yet we heard earlier this year from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), a former Secretary of State for Wales, that if the Bill is enacted the

powers of the Secretary of State will be so reduced that he will not have sufficient powers left to justify a seat in the Cabinet. If that happens, the Welsh people will lose far more than they can hope to gain from the creation of an Assembly.
Even if there is no clarity of purpose in the Government's intentions, and even if the consequences of their intentions for the government of the United Kingdom as a whole are not thought out, a sympathetic hearing would be given to the Bill if it improved the government of Wales or provided a new, sound administrative structure for Wales. But the nature of the proposals has been scrutinised in the debate—by Labour Members as much as by Conservative Members—and the Bill has been found to be riddled with defects.
This proposed form of government incorporates some of the worst defects of the local government system, including the committee system at its most extreme, a concentration of power into cliques or caucuses without the need for minority parties to be represented on the key executive committee, the right of powers to be delegated to sub-committees or even subcommittee chairmen and the ability for matters to be decided behind closed doors by party bosses.
Reference has frequently been made to expenditure, including the capital cost of £4 million, the running costs of £3 million for the Assembly and £9·5 million for the civil servants, £1¼ million for the referendum and the initial elections and another £1¼ million for the removal of staff to Cardiff.
The cost has to be taken seriously into account, but it is also worth asking why such costs are involved in this so-called reform of government. Once again the Government have provided the answer, this time in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. It says:
The Bill will involve increases in accommodation and staff costs.
Why? The next sentence tells us that
These arise partly from entirely new activities, partly from loss of economies of scale in support services and partly from divisions of responsibility between Westminster and the new devolved administration.
Those are precisely the points to which objection has been taken again and again.


Yet the Secretary of State for Wales objected most strongly today when it was suggested that what was being created was an extra tier of government. He deeply resented, as he did last year, the suggestion that the creation of an Assembly with an Executive involved in it could possibly be described as a tier of government. He told the House, in his most disarming manner, that he already had the powers and that someone had to have them, and therefore, that there was no extra tier of government.
However, with great respect to the Secretary of State, it seems to me that there is a fallacy in the logic there. If one has a bundle of powers and one keeps some and hands over half or two-thirds of them to another body—the Assembly—it seems to me that one has created an extra tier of government in that Assembly. That is the correct analysis of what is being done, because, although the totality of powers may be the same, the division of them means the creation of an extra tier of government as clearly as night follows day.
Reference has been made to local government reform. I think it is fair to say that the Secretary of State, even when leaning back happily, if he had heard everything that had been said, would have had an uncomfortable time, because there were few supporters of what is proposed concerning local government powers and the Assembly.
As the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) pointed out, if one is dissatisfied with local government in Wales there is really no need to create an Assembly to put it right. It is perfectly possible for legislation in this House to do that. Indeed, not only is it possible; it is essential in any event. Therefore, why ask the Assembly to look at the reform of local government in the first place, particularly when, as has been pointed out by many hon. Members, the whole trend of the creation of an Assembly of this kind is sure to lead to more power being sought by the Assembly from the counties and the lower tiers of local government?
If that is the case, and if the assembly will seek to take over more and more powers from local government, it is absurd to ask that same Assembly to consider the question of the reform of local

government, because that Assembly is the least desirable body to undertake that task. It is one of the interested parties. How could it possibly consider the question objectively when it is itself seeking to enlarge its own powers?
Therefore, as an administrative reform, the Wales Bill and the structure created by it are really non-starters. It is not surprising that that should be so, because if one looks at it from the point of view of administrative reform one can appreciate that Wales is really an illogical unit for which to create a regional government in that sense. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), if one is concerned simply with administrative reform and the creation of a regional government system, one would have to extend it to England as well. That, for one reason or another, is not done in this Bill, and it is not done in the Scotland Bill.
One asks, therefore, whether the Bill can really be justified in terms of the response to nationalism. It may well be that there is a case for saying that nationalism has reached a point at which one cannot ignore it and that the sensible thing to do is to try to build up some sort of compromise solution that will come to terms with the extent which nationalism has already reached and create an Assembly that will prevent its going further.
In order to do that, however, it is essential that the structure that one creates as a compromise with nationalism should be a stable one. The objections that have been made to this aspect of the Bill again and again during the debate have been that the structure created is not a stable one, that it will raise expectations that cannot be fulfilled by this sort of system and that it will lead inexorably to conflict between the devolved Government of Wales and the Government of the United Kingdom as a whole.
It is a Government that is being created in Wales, in spite of the choice of curious titles such as "Chief Executive." What is to happen if there are parties in control in London different from those in control in Cardiff? The Cardiff Assembly has the task of passing secondary legislation, which it is bound to do to implement policies created by the primary legislation of this House, with


which it may profoundly disagree. How can that be a stable solution? Every time that Cardiff seeks to do something with which London disagrees, immediately the nationalist claim will go up that it is London that is standing in the way of the legitimate aspirations of the people of Wales.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of finance and the block grant and the annual haggling that will take place over it. That will be different from the negotiations that take place over the rate support grant. Government on the one hand and local authorities on the other may disagree about the rate support grant. They may haggle and negotiate, but there is not a single body standing up against the Government at Westminster purporting to speak for a nation. It is that national element which enters into the annual debate and the annual negotiations that will provide a ready recipe for nationalist claims and advances every time there is a conflict on finance and other matters.
There are other, smaller, aspects of the Bill which encourage conflict. The fact that there are nine Acts of Parliament which confer powers that are currently exercisable in London is sure to lead to conflict, as is the fact that there are powers of intervention on the part of this Parliament which are expressed in such vague terms that they might have been deliberately made to engender conflict.
We are told that if the Welsh Assembly does something which would, or might, affect a reserved matter, this Parliament has the right to intervene. Could there be a more vague description of the circumstances in which this critical act of intervention, this vital power, can be exercised? It would be difficult to think of a way more likely to lead to conflict.
What about pay policy? We are told that the Welsh Assembly has to have regard to it, not that it has to follow it—again a timid front, enclosing the possibility of dissent, conflict and disagreement. It is not surprising that the Bill has been welcomed by the Welsh nationalists as an opportunity for them to be given a stage, a first step from which they might advance to their real goal, to their ultimate aim of an independent Wales.
We on the Conservative Benches believe that it would be a tragedy for the future

of the United Kingdom if we were to enact a piece of legislation which provided that stage, and not only the stage but the levers and the opportunities for those who wish to foment conflict to do so. That is an anxiety that has been expressed throughout the House. Yet, in spite of the conflicts that the Bill will engender, in spite of the cumbersome administrative structure that it will create, in spite of the failure to deal with the grave constitutional consequences for the Government of the United Kingdom, we have latterly today been told "Never mind all the criticisms that have been made. We must still pass the Bill, because the people of Wales will be furious if the Bill is not passed because they will not have a referendum." That was a point made by, for example, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
This House ought not to be blackmailed by argument of that kind into voting for a Bill in which it does not believe and which has been punctured with holes during today's debate. It is one thing to say that we shall consider the Bill and, if we are persuaded of its merits, give it a Second Reading, take it through Committee and pass it on Third Reading, but we shall nevertheless, as a long-stop, give the people of Wales the opportunity to reject it if we, though exercising our judgment, have misjudged their wishes. It is quite another thing to say that we should pass a Bill that we do not believe in at all. That would be the negation of all that parliamentary government has ever meant. It is not worthy to say that that is what should be done, that we should pass a Bill in which we have no belief whatever in order that the people of Wales may have the opportunity to vote it down.
It is an extraordinary course that we are invited to take, that one should say to the people of Wales "I voted for the Bill not because I believed in it, which I do not, but because I wanted you to have the chance to vote it down." Will any Member's electorate have a scrap of respect for that distortion of the parliamentary function?
I warn hon. Members on the Government side of what will happen. They have mentioned this fear themselves, and it is a real fear. In campaigning for the referendum, the Government will say


"The House of Commons has passed the Bill. Surely, the people of Wales should recognise that the Government have secured a majority in the House. The Bill has been considered with all the procedures and protections, in many days in Committee and so on, and now the people of Wales are presented with something which Parliament has considered and approved."
Do the hon. Member for Swansea, East and those who think like him believe that the Lord President, in campaigning for the referendum, will be so scrupulous as to say at referendum meetings "It is true that the Bill was passed by the House of Commons, but I must in all honesty and candour tell you that quite a number of Members said that they voted in favour of it in order to persuade you to vote against it"? It is a preposterous idea which will not be reflected in reality, and to allow oneself to be persuaded, dragooned or bullied by such specious arguments into voting for a Bill in which one does not believe is a negation of the task with which Parliament is charged.
The Bill is at best an irrelevance. Far more probably, it is a dangerous diversion of effort and energy. At its very worst, however, what it will do is to set up a costly administrative monstrosity pulling Wales away from England, setting Welshman against Welshman, and having an incalculably damaging and divisive impact on the whole of our constitutional arrangements. For that reason, I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to join in defeating the Bill on Second Reading.

1.29 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) made some references to the referendum and the clauses in the Bill dealing with it as well as to the constitutional implications which have been a feature of our discussions. I shall begin by referring to that aspect of the matter, since it has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and others, but I shall seek also to deal with many of the other matters which the hon. Gentleman raised, including the

question—I agree with him that it is a pertinent question, the so-called "West Lothian question "—which goes to the root of many of the anxieties felt by hon. Members on both sides, and I hope also to deal with the so-called awkward aspects of that question.
Let me refer first to the referendum. I agree that any proposition for a referendum raises serious questions for the House of Commons. I can understand the view of hon. Members who say that all referendums are an infringement of the paramount responsibility of the House of Commons itself. I think that that is a perfectly reputable and sustainable view for hon. Members to take. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) put that case most forcefully and formidably, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) also put it a few minutes ago.
I have considerable sympathy with that view, although as far as I know I have agreed to three referendums being proposed to be incorporated in measures to be passed through this House. Because of the European Communities Act and the manner in which we were taken into the Common Market, I think that the only way of dealing with the question at that time, in 1975, was to have a referendum, although I think that it had many disagreeable aspects, including the result of the referendum itself. But we had to take that into account also.
I agree with those who say that in relation to this Bill there are some difficulties with the referendum. On the other hand, many hon. Members have argued strongly that it is only by having a referendum that we can establish for sure that there is a strong desire in Scotland or Wales for the establishment of such Assemblies as we propose in these Bills.
I believe that if we carry the proposals for referendums any further, and certainly if we were to apply them in the general circumstances of industrial troubles, as was suggested on high authority a few weeks or months ago, it would be disastrous for the constitution of this country. However, I regard it as necessary to accept the proposition of a referendum to deal with these constitutional changes.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty that if we are


to have a referendum at all it must be fair. That means that it must be accepted as fair not only by those who propose it but by all sections. I do not mean that there could be a referendum about a referendum to see in advance whether everybody thinks that it is fair. I do not think that my hon. Friend was suggesting that last refinement, although he might consider it as a possible amendment later in the Bill, or possibly as a condition of his support for us in the Lobby. I am not suggesting any special further addition to him in that respect, but it might be that such a complicated condition will occur to his ingenious mind.
Of course, we shall consider the representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty and others have made about the form of the questions, because, as I said when we had the earlier debate about the form of the referendum, we must seek to ensure that it is fair. I hope that even those who do not like referendums will join in agreeing that we should try to get general acceptance that the questions that are put have the general support of the House as being fairly and honestly put.
I give the guarantee that we shall consider this carefully. I do not give a guarantee to my hon. Friend that we shall change the question in the way that he has suggested, because there might be others who, once the proposition is put, will say that our question has been put more fairly than that proposed by my hon. Friend. I promise that I shall accept the importance of what he has said, and I hope that when we come to that clause we shall have a sensible discussion and reach common agreement.

Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend has responded sympathetically as to the wording of the question. He will recall that points were made also in respect of the fairness of having the two referendums held simultaneously in Wales and Scotland and not having them coincide with a General Election. Can he give any assurance on that?

Mr. Foot: We shall have to look at all those questions, but I quite agree with my hon. Friend—I have not examined this or discussed it with my colleagues—on the question of the timing of such a referendum. On a first sight of the ques-

tion put by my hon. Friend, I believe that it would be wrong to hold the referendum at the time of a General Election, and it would not secure what I said was the kind of condition which I believe to be the right one for the presentation of a referendum of this nature—that is, that there should be a general understanding in the House of Commons; I do not say that that means everybody, because one can seldom get everybody to agree—that the questions are fairly put. I believe that that is a proper way in which such a matter can be approached.
I hope that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby will not think that I am in any sense denigrating his knowledge of Welsh matters by turning to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) first, particularly on questions of local government. I fully understand the sure touch of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby on Welsh affairs and on all other aspects, but on local government, especially when we get to such an extreme part of the Principality as Pembrokeshire, I hope he will think that his colleague is a better expert than himself.
Some of us were startled by the declaration on local government affairs by the hon. Member for Pembroke. We thought that he had fought most valiantly for his constituency. We thought that he had protested against the local government reform introduced by his right hon. and hon. Friends. We thought that he had raised his voice on every available occasion to speak for his constituency in every assembly where anyone would listen to him. Not at all. It will be very interesting for the constituents of the hon. Member for Pembroke to know not merely that he has abandoned the fight now but that he never fought before, apparently. Perhaps he will tell us—or rather, tell his constituents, because they are even more interested than I am—why he changed his mind. I do not see why anybody should pay any attention to his views on local government affairs. I say this all the more strongly because the hon. Gentleman sought to reprimand us on these matters.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not know anything about my constituency, so I know that he will not understand that, whatever my constituents' views about local government, however much they may


dislike government from Carmarthen, they dislike far more the prospect of government being taken even further away to Cardiff, and they loathe the idea of an Assembly and demand that I should fight it all the way.

Mr. Foot: That will be a very much better fight than the fight the hon. Gentleman put up on the other matter. He has not really answered the question I put. I was dealing with the local government question. The hon. Gentleman said that it was a matter of some importance. He gave us the impression that he supported the proposals that were pushed through by his right hon. and hon. Friends on the matter, and yet we had thought that Pembroke was very hostile to the whole proposition. I can well understand that Pembroke should have been hostile, because the whole of the rest of Wales was hostile to the proposition as well. The local government reform, so-called, devised by Conservative Members, was an almighty botch.
Not only that, but it was an almighty botch forced down the throats of Welsh Members of the House of Commons—I am sorry to have to say it; I do not say it in any racialist sense—by a predominantly English House of Commons. It is an interesting application of the principle of devolution. I might even enlist a little support from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty on this matter, and that is one of my constant aims in life. I know my hon. Friend's constituents almost as well as my constituents, and I know that they, too, are bitterly opposed to the whole of local government reform, but if we had had a Welsh Assembly in being those concerned would never have succeeded in forcing it down our throats, would they? It may be that my hon. Friend is coming along. It may be that he will now vote for us on the referendum.
In my opinion, we shall not have the best form of local government reform if we do not get the Assembly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall say why. The failure to secure the proper form of local government before was not primarily due to the predominant English majority, although that played a large part in it. The fact is that in Wales we had devised—my right hon. Friend the

Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) was Secretary of State for Wales when it was done—a good form of local government reform, one that included the establishment of an elected council for Wales, or an elected Assembly. In fact, we can use either term. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) used both of those methods in his election address to make doubly sure that there would be no misapprehension about that for which he was arguing. He used the terms "elected council" and "elected Assembly", and I agree that he included a comprehensive statement in his election address.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I also said that I was completely opposed to separatism.

Mr. Foot: We are at one again. I am glad that such unity is breaking out all over the place. I, too, am opposed to separatism. It is all a question of how we go about it.

Mr. Kinnock: My right hon. Friend is accurate in his suggestion that my constituents want to get rid of the awful virus of local government reform that has been forced upon us, but will he explain to them why it is necessary, if they are to get rid of the virus, to contract bronchial pneumonia, get cerebral contusions, break both legs and break a couple of arms? Why is it necessary to do that to accomplish the end of ridding their bodies of the virus?

Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend were as knowledgeable about politics as he seems to be about medical matters, he would be able to appreciate that there is a much swifter way of dealing with the matter. The swiftest way to establish local government in Wales and to ensure that it really meets the needs of the people in Wales is to have it surveyed by those who will implement it.
I return to the matters to which I promised to return and to some of the central questions that aroused anxiety. I do not want to try to dodge them. Important though the West Lothian question is—

Mr. Abse: Why does not my right hon. Friend address himself to the question that is really being put to him despite the levity which it is being dealt with? Why does he not address himself


to the problem? If we are to have reform of local government in Wales, why should not the preliminary work be done by an independent commission and not by an Assembly, which will undoubtedly wish to devour our existing local authorities?

Mr. Foot: I have every good reason. Nothing could be more absurd than to think that the proper reform of local government is something to be undertaken by some so-called objective, independent body. Nothing is more in the proper purview of politicians and political animals to try to solve than the question of the proper form of local government. For my hon. Friend now to come forward and say that we should solve it by having an independent body which recommends us to do this and that is surely to go in quite the wrong direction.
I want now to get on to the question which has been put by many hon. Members. It is said to be the most difficult question of all arising in any form of devolution, whether applied to Scotland or to Wales, although the application to Wales is different and, in a sense, less severe or fierce, because there the legislative authority is not passed to the Assembly. But I acknowledge to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that some of the same questions arise in the case of Wales as well.
The suggestion is that if we have a proposition whereby Members have different capacities to vote, different things on which they can vote and different categories into which they are divided, the effect will be not merely damaging to Wales or Scotland but even more damaging to the House of Commons as a whole.
My first answer is not a complete answer, but it is proper to make it. I do offer it primarily not to my right hon. and hon. Friends but to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, because they have been pressing this matter so strongly. I urge them to read the book "Inside Right" by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who deals specifically with this question in it. He says:
The objection that Scottish MPs would have a vote on, say, housing and education in England while English MPs (and also Scottish MPs) will have no control over those subjects in Scotland"—
the same applies in some degree to Wales—

seems legalistic. Whatever happens in England will have great influence on what is done in Scotland, since great disparities between England and the rest would not be tolerated in the devolved areas. It is not therefore unreasonable that the Scots should be allowed some influence on decisions made for England. That surely would not be too high a price to pay for the maintenance of the Union.
The right hon. Gentleman goes on to elaborate the question. He does not quote Burke on the matter, but the implication is that one can have too much logic and too little sense, and he argues that one can perfectly apply the operation to disregarding the West Lothian question and that that would not have the injurious consequences that it is sometimes claimed.
I have always insisted that we cannot solve the problem by an in-and-out arrangement. I believe that it stands to reason that we should not have two standards or categories of Members. I do not believe that we can have an in-and-out arrangement of that kind, with Members entitled to vote on some things and not on others, with some line drawn between the two and no one knowing exactly how it is to be drawn, because I believe that at times of great national or international crises, when the maintenance of a Government or whatever it may be depends on the vital support of one or two votes, we could not rest such a situation securely on an in-and-out solution. Indeed, it is no solution.
That is what was discovered in the Irish Home Rule Bills at the end of the last century and later. Originally such a proposal was included, but it had to be abandoned and it was not reintroduced in the later Home Rule Bills introduced by the Liberal Government.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) indicated to us that, when this matter was raised in 1971 in relation to the Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), then Leader of the Labour Party in Opposition, suggested the establishment of an in-and-out arrangement of some kind in order to deal with the problem. But, again, I do not think that that is a proper way to deal with it.
We have a situation already in the House in which hon. Members are not all equally interested in every issue. Despite the vast mass assembled here tonight,


obviously they are not all necessarily very interested even in devolution, but they vote on it.
The House of Commons has solved many problems in the past. It has solved the problem of Northern Ireland in the past—[HON. MEMBERS: "In the past."]—and hon. Members for Northern Ireland did not object on that occasion. The House has solved similar problems, and it can solve this one too.
To say that, because the problem cannot be solved, it is therefore impossible to have any form of devolution that will work, is an absurdity, and the House should not be prepared to accept it.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend has hardly been in for the debate, and I shall not give way to him.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Pembroke and the right hon. Member for Down, South, said that the only way to solve this problem which we have been debating for so long is by way of the federalist solution. The argument is that if we are to move towards any form of successful devolution our proposals are not satisfactory. Hon. Members say that this is mainly because of the inability to apply the in-and-out arrangement for voting. They say that, therefore, the only way is to carry out the full federalist solution. That has been the view of Liberal Members. It has also been one of the matters, if I may divulge such secrets, upon which we have had discussions in recent months. I have held, and still hold, the view, despite the weighty evidence from the right hon. Member for Down, South, that resort to the federal solution is much worse than the disease.

Mr. Kinnock: There is no disease.

Mr. Foot: I believe that there is a disease. I object to the federal solution partly because of what was spelt out in the Kilbrandon Report. There is an even stronger case against federal solution. It is that that solution destroys the supremacy of this Parliament.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, for the avoidance of doubt, for allowing me to say that I

regard the federal solution merely as a theoretical structure which solves the conundrum posed by the proposal for legislative devolution inside a unitary State. In practical terms, it is a reductio ad absurdum. Nothing that I have said shows that I think it is at all practicable or desirable for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Foot: When the right hon. Member read to me a statement of a proposal for movement towards a federal solution, he did not say that it was just a "theatrical conundrum". When I heard him then, I thought that it was a great stroke of policy. Now it has diminished to smaller proportions.
In my opinion—and I say it to members of the Liberal Party in the most persuasive terms I can—it would be wrong for the House to think that we can solve this problem by resort to the federalist solution. If we did that, we should then have to introduce all the apparatus of a Bill of Rights and of a judiciary which governs the whole operation. We should undermine the supremacy of this House, which, I believe, is the most important precious possession of the British people.[HON. MEMBERS: "What is your answer?"] My answer is that in this Bill there is no impairment of the supremacy of Parliament. There is no impairment of the House of Commons or of its authority.
All that has been provided for in the Bill. Whatever other deficiencies it may have, that is its supreme merit. That is why I say that what we propose in it. even if it is not perfect, is very much better than the solution suggested earlier by the Liberals, although they accept many of our arguments. I do not say that they are converted to our point of view, but I think that they accept some of our arguments and I hope that the House will do the same.
If we were to think that there was some escape from this problem by going after the false federalist god, we would be on a course that would destroy the authority of the House of Commons. We on the Government side are determined to repudiate any such course.

Mr. Brittan: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree with this summary of what he is saying? It is that the Government think that only a federal solution would provide the theoretical answer to


the problem that is posed. They do not believe in a federal solution, and, therefore, they have no answer to the problem. None the less, they are putting an answer to the House although it is a fundamental objection to their proposals.

Mr. Foot: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is a very late corner to these matters. His right hon. and hon. Friends were saying that they were in favour of devolution the week before last, and even last night.
I am in favour of the form of devolution which we are proposing in these Bills. I fully understand that in shaping such a measure the House of Commons must play the fullest part. Of course we should look at it with care. That is why some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty, whose assistance I was happy to have at that time, immediately, on publication of the Kilbrandon Report, sat down—this was way back in the summer of 1973—to examine these matters in detail.
It is not just a question of having thrown into the manifesto a few bright words which enabled some of my hon. Friends to attach their names to it in

that General Election. We went into great detail on the matter and we came forward with proposals for Wales before any proposals were made for Scotland, and that is not the first time that Wales had led other parts of the country.

I ask the House to look at what we are proposing, not on the ground that is being suggested that we brought it forward in order to yield to pressure from any quarter. We examined all these matters in detail after the Kilbrandon Report produced its suggestions for alterations in the constitution.
The more that the House looks at what we are proposing and the more it looks at the alternatives, the more it will see that what the Labour Party worked out in such considerable detail four and five years ago will be of great service not only to the people of Wales but to the maintenance of the unity of the United Kingdom, which is the central strap in the policy for devolution that we propose.

Question put, That the Bill be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 264.

Division No. 8]
AYES
[2.0 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cartwright, John
English, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clemitson, Ivor
Evans,Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Ashley, Jack
Coleman, Donald
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Ashton, Joe
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Faulds, Andrew


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Concannon, J. D.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Atkinson, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Corbett, Robin
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Flannery, Martin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bates, Alf
Crawford, Douglas
Ford, Ben


Bean, R. E.
Crawshaw, Richard
Forrester, John


Belth, A. J.
Cronin, John
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cryer, Bob
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Davidson, Arthur
George, Bruce


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Gilbert, Dr John


Boardman, H.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Ginsburg, David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Golding, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Gould, Bryan


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Deakins, Eric
Gourlay, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Graham, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Grant, John (Islington C)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dempsey, James
Grocott, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter
Hardy, Peter


Buchanan, Richard
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dunn, James A.
Hatton, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Dunnett, Jack
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Canavan, Dennis
Eadie, Alex
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cant, R. B.
Edge, Geoff
Henderson, Douglas


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hooson, Emlyn


Carter, Ray
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Horam, John


Carler-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)




Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mitchell, Austin
Spearing, Nigel


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molloy, William
Spriggs, Leslie


Huckfield, Les
Moonman, Eric
Stallard, A. W.


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moyle, Roland
Stoddart, David


Hunter, Adam
Mudd, David
Stott, Roger


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Strang, Gavin


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Janner, Greville
Newens, Stanley
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Noble, Mike
Swain, Thomas


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Oakes, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


John, Brynmor
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thompson, George


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Padley, Walter
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Palmer, Arthur
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pardoe, John
Tierney, Sydney


Judd, Frank
Park, George
Tinn, James


Kaufman, Gerald
Parry, Robert
Tomlinson, John


Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurie
Tomney, Frank


Kerr, Russell
Pendry, Tom
Urwin, T. W.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Penhaligon, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lambie, David
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lamborn, Harry
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Radice, Giles
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lee, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Ward, Michael


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Watkins, David


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkinson, John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watt, Hamish


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weetch, Ken


Luard, Evan
Robinson, Geoffrey
Weitzman, David


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wellbeloved, James


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Welsh, Andrew


McCartney, Hugh
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


MacCormick, Iain
Rooker, J. W.
White, James (Pollok)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Roper, John
Whitehead, Phillip


McElhone, Frank
Rose, Paul B.
Whitlock, William


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wigley, Dafydd


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mackintosh, John P.
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Maclennan, Robert
Ryman, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Madden, Max
Selby, Harry
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Magee, Bryan
Sever, J.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Mahon, Simon
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Mallalieu, J. P W.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Marks, Kenneth
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Woodall, Alec


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woof, Robert


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sillars, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Maynard, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius
Young, David (Bolton E)


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis



Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Snape, Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Adley, Robert
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Altken, Jonathan
Bradford, Rev Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clegg, Walter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brittan, Leon
Cockroft, John


Arnold, Tom
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brooke, Peter
Cope, John


Awdry, Daniel
Brotherton, Michael
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Kenneth
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.


Banks, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul
Critchley, Julian


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crouch, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Buck, Antony
Crowder, F. P.


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Budgen, Nick
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Benyon, W.
Bulmer, Esmond
Dalyell, Tam


Berry, Hon Anthony
Burden, F. A.
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutslord)


Biffen, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Carson, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Drayson, Burnaby


Boscawen, Ron Robert
Channon, Paul
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bottomley, Peter
Churchill, W. S.
Dunlop, John







Durant, Tony
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Dykes, Hugh
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Elliott, Sir William
Knox, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Emery, Peter
Lamond, James
Rhodes James, R.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian


Fairgrieve, Russell
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Farr, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fell, Anthony
Lawson, Nigel
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lloyd, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Forman, Nigel
Luce, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin


Fry, Peter
MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Silvester, Fred


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sims, Roger


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Madel, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mates, Michael
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Speed, Keith


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Spence, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Sproat, Iain


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stainton, Keith


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanley, John


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Griffiths, Eldon
Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Hannam, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan, Geraint
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Trotter, Neville


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Higgins, Terrence L.
Newton, Tony
Wakeham, John


Hodgson, Robin
Nott, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wall, Patrick


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow West)
Walters, Dennis


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Warren, Kenneth


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wells, John


Hurd, Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


James, David
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Pink, R. Bonner
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Jessel, Toby
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Younger, Hon George


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg



Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy



Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — WALES [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for changes in the government of Wales, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment of any sums out of moneys provided by Parliament; and
(2) any charge on or payment out of or into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (SEED AND PLANT MARKETING)

2.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I beg to move.

That this House takes notes of Commission Document No. R/1170/77 on seed and plant marketing.

The Report of the Scrutiny Committee has given us the opportunity in this debate to look at the EEC statutory seed certification arrangements, to consider how they are being developed, and to draw the attention of the House to various significant changes for which we have been working. Some of these changes are covered by the amending directive examined by the Scrutiny Committee; others we shall seek to have included when that directive is considered by the Council.

The House will be aware that in most developed countries schemes are in existence that offer a guarantee of seed quality and lead to the improvement of seed stocks through the certification of seed. The corner-stone of the system is the listing of varieties that have proved themselves in official trials and the subsequent absence from the market of those varieties that are of lesser value or that have been found not to retain their characteristics from one generation to the next.

On to this basis of high quality varieties —suitable for the particular conditions in which crops will be produced from the seed—is built a system of inspections of the crops to produce seed, testing and analysis of the seed before sale, and certification only of those stocks that meet the quality standards laid down. Apart from the checks and tests before certification, there are detailed controls over the sealing and labelling of the bags in which the certified seed is to be sold, and post-control checks through the growing of plots from samples taken from seed lots entered for certification.

These are the essentials of the system that has been operating on a statutory basis in the EEC for the most widely-used kinds of seed for the past 11 years. The United Kingdom had its own non-statutory arrangements for seed certifica-

tion before accession and, moreover, we had been very active in this vital area of the control of seed quality for more than 50 years. Our long and detailed experience has helped us to move from a purely voluntary to a statutory system with comparatively few and unimportant problems and I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the excellent work of the United Kingdom Seeds Executive, whose firm and wise leadership in the transitional period has been of much benefit. Credit is due also to all sides of the seeds industry—breeders, growers and merchants—as well as to the officials of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany and of the agricultural departments for the contribution they have made to our relatively smooth adoption of the EEC system.

The legislative basis for the EEC arrangements is contained in a single directive dealing with the testing and official listing of seed varieties for agricultural use and a group of directives each of which applies the basic requirements of the statutory certification system —crop inspection, seed testing, sealing and labelling provisions—to a particular seed sector. Ignoring vine propagation, which is not applied in the United Kingdom, there are six of these marketing directives, and it is principally these directives that it is now proposed to amend. The amending directive is so long only because each amendment has to be included up to six times so as to apply the changes in all the places where it is appropriate to do so.

Many of the amendments put forward are quite uncontentious, reflecting technological developments since the directives were drawn up or procedural improvements that will aid the smooth running of the administration. In the first category is an amendment that makes specific provision for the use of tear-resistant labels—a comparatively recent innovation—and that does away with the need for a further label inside the bag when such a label is used. In the second category—administrative improvements—are provisions that would remove from the cumbersome procedure of amendment at the Council level various details of the operation of the certification system that can properly be discussed and agreed within the Commission.

In the same category is an amendment that extends the period during which each Member State may take its own decisions on admissible varieties and admissible sources of seed from outside the EEC pending the completion of the research and inquiries that would be necessary for the adoption of Community-wide decisions on these matters. Further changes are largely of a drafting nature, for instance to maintain uniformity over such matters as sealing and labelling between the EEC provisions and those of the OECD certification schemes which are widely used in international trade in seeds.

Further amendments give effect to more up-to-date concepts of the needs of the consumer by requiring information to be supplied as to when seeds packages were sealed or officially sampled. Provisions on these lines were included in the EEC's more recent directives, though no such requirements appeared in the earlier ones —which covered cereals, beet and fodder plants.

I am glad to say that despite the absence of statutory provisions, the United Kingdom trade has recognised the need to quote full information, and, in the main, the proposed amendments merely reflect our own widely-adopted good practice. However, in one area—the labelling of small packets of vegetable seed—we are not satisfied that there is any real benefit from the Commission's proposals. Our packets already quote the year of packing, but we allow this to be any stated period of 12 months. The Commission wish to standardise the period, but we cannot see that this gives the consumer any better information than the present system, which has the virtue of allowing the trade flexibility to deal in different ways with the various species they sell. We are therefore resisting this part of the labelling proposals.

So far I have referred only to the type of amendment to detail needed from time to time to keep a well-used and well-understood system operating effectively. But this is not to imply that the system would not benefit from more fundamental amendment. Indeed the Government and all sides of the seeds industry wish to see two radical changes made. One is included in this amending directive, one remains for further negotiation, and I

shall be saying a word or two about that in a moment.

But, first, let me deal with the fundamental change that we have succeeded in getting put forward. It sounds a straightforward and common sense matter—but it has taken three years of patient campaigning to reach the present position. I refer to the provision to allow sales for cropping of certain seed originally intended purely for further multiplication. The point is that there can well be a surplus of such seed and the present position is that unless the crops producing this were inspected in the field, which is by no means always the case, the seed cannot currently be marketed to the farmer. In our view it is nonsense to deny the farmer access to such surplus supplies as may become available in this way.

Against this it has been argued that the whole system could be evaded if, for example, the trade deliberately produced much more of this seed than was needed for multiplication purposes, avoiding the need for field inspection of the crops, and simply elected to redesignate it as seed for crop production. We have, however, stressed that the procedure will be used only with the permission of the certifying authority and that the lack of a field inspection of the crop is more than compensated for by the growing of post-control plots which can readily be inspected at all stages of growth.

I am very glad to say we appear finally to have persuaded our partners that with the proposed controls over the quantities involved there are no unacceptable risks to consumers or to the certification system from making this change, which we have long seen as adding a necessary element of flexibility to the arrangements and as enabling us to make the best use of our available seed supplies.

I come however to the fundamental point which is not covered in the amending directive—and it is the matter to which the Scrutiny Committee has drawn attention in its report. As the Committee has pointed out, the seeds regime is somewhat inflexible. Standards are laid down for varietal and species purity and for the level of germination, and if these standards are not met then the seed cannot normally be sold within the Community.

The old United Kingdom system, on the other hand, met the needs of buyers and


sellers of seeds without imposing rigid absolute standards. Under our arrangements certain standards were laid down, but seed could be freely sold below these standards provided that the levels actually achieved were declared on the bags.

The Committee considers the old United Kingdom requirements to be preferable. I think it is quite right. The system worked well here from the time of the Seeds Act 1920 right up to the date of our accession. It allowed the farmer to buy the variety he really wanted regardless of whether germination may be 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. down. The price doubtless reflected the slightly lower level, and the farmer would take account of it in the rate at which he sowed the seed.

There are two important points here. First, the farmer got the right variety—it was not forced off the market, leaving him perhaps the alternative of choosing between one he might have tried before and found less suitable for his particular conditions, and one of which he had no personal experience at all. The second important point is that seed at less than the statutory standard would find a ready market.

Under the present arrangements, on the other hand, it can normally be sold as seed only if exported to a third country. Failing an outlet of this kind, or an alternative use—and this really applies only to cereal seed or oil seeds—the seed is wasted.

The view expressed by the Scrunity Committee is that held by all sides of the seeds industry in this country and also represents the firm view of the Government. We have long been seeking to have the directives changed in this sense. We have to bear in mind, however, that for the other eight States this would be a very radical departure indeed from the principle underlying their certification schemes—that is that standards must be met or seed cannot be marketed. They see the alternative as likely to lead to a situation in which very low quality seed would come to be sold. They argue that cheap, low quality seed would drive out the better quality product and the whole purpose of certification would be defeated.

Our experience over half a century is that quality is satisfactorily maintained despite the possibility of lower grade seed

getting on to the market, and we shall continue to press for changes. We were not able to persuade our colleagues in the other States to include a suitable provision when the amending directive was being drafted. However, it is our view that the possibilities of a limited application of the United Kingdom philosophy on a trial basis might be worth exploring, and when the Council examines the draft there will be an opportunity to propose such an amendment. In our view this represents the best chance of making progress towards our objective in this area.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Minister mentions a United Kingdom philosophy. Am I not right in thinking that there have been differences in practice between Scotland and England, and that in Scotland we have demanded much higher standards of certification?

Mr. Strang: I think that the hon. Gentleman must address himself to a particular species. If he is referring to potatoes, certainly there is some very important potato growing in his constituency. In Scotland we have traditionally had higher standards. We have designated Scotland and Northern Ireland as high-quality potato seed-growing regions in the Community. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that this has now been accepted by the Community. Indeed, the amending directive provides for the establishment of a higher Community grade of seed potato, and any seed potatoes below that standard would not be allowed to be moved into those high-quality seed-growing areas of Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that that will well illustrate to the hon. Gentleman that the Government are absolutely determined to protect the well-earned reputation of the seed potato growers in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The amending directive, then, updates or streamlines the seeds marketing directives in various ways that experience has shown to be necessary. It makes provision for the adoption of a fundamental improvement for which the United Kingdom has been pressing, and finally, whilst it does not make the radical change in approach that we should like to see, it does give us the opportunity to try to make progress towards our objective.
I should perhaps add one point for the benefit of the House. The substance of


the proposed amendments is precisely as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum that I sent forward in June. However, so far as the timing of the proposed amendments is concerned, the Council is now considering taking the amendments in two parts, and according priority to those items of greatest urgency and taking a little longer over the proposals.
I am glad to say that the fundamental change we have sought—to get surplus multiplication seed to the farmer—will be amongst the priority items and could be introduced by the end of the year. Conversely, we now have a little longer in which to pursue our campaign for "declarable" standards as the Scrutiny Committee has recommended. I can assure the House that we shall lose no opportunity to press this matter. I hope that I have said—

Mr. Thomas Swain: My hon. Friend has dealt mainly with the prices and quality of seeds used for mass production by farmers. Has he taken into consideration the retail trade in seeds, from seed potatoes to the most minute onion seeds, and the packaging content of the cost, which, apparently, is more than the seed content? Will he do something to remedy this cost factor because if we are to succeed in agriculture and horticulture we have to encourage the back-yard gardener to "dig for victory" as we did during the war, so that we can relieve this country of its overburdening foreign expenditure through the import of horticultural and agricultural goods?

Mr. Strang: I attach importance, as does my hon. Friend, to the supply of a high standard of seed at reasonable prices, and properly labelled, to the smaller producer who is, by and large, concerned about growing in his own garden, often for his own use. I can assure my hon. Friend that a point which concerns us in this package of modifications is that one of the proposals would have the effect of increasing the cost of the packaging of these smaller packets of seeds which are bought by those who, for example, wish to grow cabbage or lettuce in their gardens. We are resisting that element in the amended directive. We have the interests of gardeners at

heart and are not concerned solely about the larger growers.
I hope that I have given hon. Members a good indication of the items of substance in this amended directive.

2.33 a.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I thought that I heard the Minister, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) refer to something called "red lettuce". I must say that this is a totally new crop to me. Whether it is a manifestation of this Government I do not know. It would be interesting to learn what red lettuce is.
We are grateful to the Scrutiny Committee for referring this matter to us. I think it is fair to say that although we are embarking on this debate extremely late at night, one of the effects of the activities of the Scrutiny Committee since it has begun its valuable work is that it has landed the House with infinitely more complex problems with regard to agriculture than we ever had to deal with on the Floor of the House in the days before we joined the Community. I am not complaining about that, but I must say that even those of us who have some agricultural experience, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, find ourselves in more complicated waters than ever before. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) nodding assent. As he is the Chairman of that section of the Scrutiny Committee which refers these things to us, he has a good deal to answer for, though, as I say, I do not criticise him for that.
I turn now to the measures before us tonight. The Opposition's attitude is that we welcome measures to improve the quality of seed. Before any anti-Marketeer leaps up to intervene at this point—I see that the most usual faces are absent tonight which shows that when we reach such an hour as this they do not bother to turn up—I should point out that stringent seed regulations have always been a feature of our legislation. All hon. Members who have known anything about agriculture recognise that the House of Commons has always taken a close interest in the control of the seed which has been available both to the farmer and to the gardener, who has always been


protected by regulations which the House has laid down.
However, although we welcome these regulations in general, several questions have to be asked. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to some thoughts which were submitted by the United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association Limited—I shall call it UKASTA from now on—which gave evidence to the Select Committee regarding the views of its European representative body. The full name of that European body eludes me for the moment, but I shall refer to it as COSEMCO. I believe that it is referred to in the evidence given to the Select Committee.
First, then, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the attitude of COSEMCO to these regulations? I have not been able to ascertain its view, that is, the total European view of the seed trade. We have been privileged to have the views of UKASTA, which is the British limb, but we should like to know the view of the European organisation.
I shall take the matters in the order in which the Minister referred to them in the helpful explanatory memorandum which he circulated a little earlier in the year. First, with regard to the revised sealing and labelling requirements, it seems to me that there is some argument here between the various interested parties. Although the hon. Gentleman told us that in general the European regulations are falling into line with the way in which we have done things in this country over the years, it seems to me that there is still a measure of argument.
In its submission to the Select Committee UKASTA said:
This information"—
referring, in particular, to the requirement that a package has to be labelled with the month and year when it was sealed up—
is of no value whatever to the user and is puite unnecessary for the enforcement authority.
UKASTA went on to point out that it is an offence to market seeds below the standards of purity and germination which are laid down. We understand that last point, but, although I have no wish to get into a great argument with UKASTA, it seems to me that there must be cases in which knowledge that a pack

of seed was last year's and not this year's could be of value both to the farmer and to the merchant as well as to the allotment holder or gardener to whom the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East referred.
A letter from the NFU points out that a great deal of seed is imported and a date on the package could alert a person concerned with the use of that seed that it might be wise for a re-test to be made on the germination of the seed to make sure that with the passage of time the germination had held up to the percentage exhibited on the package.

Mr. Swain: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that germination can be encouraged by artificial means, as against natural means, such as moisture in greenhouses, and mass production in the farming world? That would give a fictitious guarantee of seed germination within the standards laid down.

Mr. Jopling: I am trying to recollect my days spent at university trying to understand these matters. I think that we are in danger of getting into a semantic argument about what is natural and what is artificial. When the hon. Gentleman talks about moisture, I might argue that the introduction of an element of moisture was a natural process.
There is a set procedure, which I think is widely recognised, for arriving at the percentage of germination. The Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt use the advice that is available to him to confirm that. I think I am right in saying that the House has laid down specifically how moisture and other influences should be brought into the environment of the seed to establish the percentage germination. I think that that is a matter that is beyond dispute and something that the House disposed of many years ago.
I am not at this stage inclined to accept what UKASTA has said about this matter. I am more inclined to take the view adopted by the NFU, which is that it would be helpful to know the exact date on which the package was sealed. I was glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that this matter is being pursued in the negotiations. I think that he referred earlier to small packages of vegetable seed. I gather that the NFU is thinking of rather larger packages, particularly of grain and herbage seeds.
UKASTA says that the enforcement of these provisions will cause it difficulties, and therefore put up costs. Whenever the House insists on more stringent measures to control the quality of seed, it inevitably means that the cost of that seed is increased. I regret that that is something that we cannot readily avoid.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Is it not the case that the anxieties of UKASTA are rendered less valid—although one understands what it is getting at—by the fact that a number of directives stem from the time before we joined the Common Market and accepted this requirement to put the month and year of sealing on the package? It was therefore logical to extend that to other directives. We had by definition accepted that as a result of the Treaty of Accession Section 2 of the European Communities Act, and any of the additional documents that were signed at the same time.

Mr. Jopling: I think that that is right.
It seems a little daft to put on a sack of seed potatoes the year in which they were packaged, because it would be a poor farmer or gardener who did not know whether they were this year's or last year's potatoes.
I now come to the second point to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in his explanatory memorandum—the introduction of procedures for checking the trueness to variety of self-pollinating varieties of seeds
This refers principally to cereals. In its note to me the NFU has made this point:
As the Community regulations have introduced a system of cereal seed never going beyond the second generation in order to ensure as little deviation as possible from the basic seed it would seem logical to have a standard covering seeds that could eventually be put on national lists and the common catalogue beyond 30th June 1977.
I hope that the Minister will refer to that later.
It is all very well to have the procedure which is laid down in these proposals, but is it not also important to have botanical standards rationalised between the various countries in order to deal with the standardisation of seed? What are the Government doing to ensure that the same

botanical characteristics are used in all the EEC member countries to determine the distinctness of a new variety? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking to agree identical standards for the uniformity of all varieties within the Community, thus ensuring that the seed trade between member States is not impaired by the enforcement of more stringent uniformity standards in one or more of the EEC countries?
I gather that, for instance, Danish seed has been refused entry into this country because we look at more of the minute botanical characteristics—by which I mean, for instance, the degree to which hairs exist on the outside of a barley seed—than the Danes do. I understand that there are similar examples elsewhere. It is important that the same treatment of minute botanical characteristics be applied by the various member States. This is not dealt with in the document. Unless it is dealt with at some future time, we are likely to land ourselves in a good deal of difficulty.

Mr. Swain: It is climatic conditions.

Mr. Jopling: It has nothing to do with climatic conditions. It has to do with the basic genetic make-up of the individual seed and is nothing whatever to do with the environment.
Representations have been made to me about the provisions concerning seed potatoes. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain in further detail the new grading system which is proposed for potatoes. Will it mean the total scrapping of the various grades of seed potatoes which have been in existence in this country for a very long time? Will it mean the end of farm-to-farm sales of seed potatoes which are, and have been traditionally, sold without a certificate of any sort on the basis of "once grown" or "twice grown" or, indeed, as "grown "? This is a trade in potatoes in which I have engaged both as a seller and as a buyer for many years. I did not declare my interest at the beginning of my speech, but I do so now. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether it means the end of that trade.
How shall we continue to have health safeguards if the new grades are imposed upon us, which will mean that seed potatoes will be able to pass from one


country to another? Is the hon. Gentleman sure that this is not imposing a health risk? As for the specialist seed-producing areas of Scotland and Northern Ireland, it would be tragic if we were to allow the new grades to be imposed upon us and if the stock seed potatoes from other parts of the Community were to be introduced into the celebrated seed-growing areas of Scotland and Northern Ireland to the detriment of the health of our basic seed stocks in this country.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us when all this will happen. Will the imposition of these grades be an impossible complication, bearing in mind that the earlier Community seed potato regulations have not yet been introduced? The NFU has written to me to say that it feels that there should be time to absorb the first group of regulations before the new group concerning new grading systems are superimposed upon it. That is extremely important. If the hon. Gentleman is able to clarify the situation, it will be of great help to the House and the potato industry.
I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Government are doing their best to ensure that surplus seed for multiplication purposes may be sold to farmers. That must be right and it is something that we welcome.
My final point concerns a matter in which my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West is especially interested and to which the Select Committee has referred. We are concerned about the proposals that will not permit the sale of seed below certain levels of germination. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is a well-established practice in this country to allow seed of a lower germination level to be sold provided that the specification is freely advertised on the bag. For example, it is well established that whereas normally a farmer might plant 10 lb. of seed to the acre at 90 per cent. germination, he will need to plant 11¼ lb. per acre to get the same number of live seeds per acre if the germination is down to 80 per cent. It is proposed that that trade should now be stopped.
That would be extremely unfair on growers in a bad season when there might be a seasonal shortage of seed, or even local seed shortages in certain areas. In

the event of there being a shortage of first-quality seed, it would be extremely unwise to stop totally the sale of second-quality seed of a germination level below the level approved by the Community. I am glad to see that UKASTA has referred to that in its evidence to the Select Committee. The Committee expressed its concern about that part of the regulations.

2.55 a.m.

Mr. Thomas Swain: I rise briefly to clarify a few points made by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) about soil conditions. Everyone in agriculture and horticulture knows that dark soil has 25 per cent. higher heat yield than red soil or brown soil. As a consequence, the sowing of seed at various times in this country has an effect. Hence, we get early potatoes from the Scilly Isles. They arrive much earlier than potatoes from Scotland, seven weeks and two days in reaping time.
Therefore, we must take into consideration these effects on germination yield. In the area where I live, certain potatoes are subject, whoever grows them, be he farmer or small gardener, to scab. Anyone who has seen a potato with scab looks at it as an unholy thing. The inside of the potato is quite edible but the outside looks bad because of the scab.
In suppporting these regulations I hope that in his representations in the Community the Minister takes into consideration the variations from Land's End to John o' Groats in our climate and soil conditions and the various sowing and reaping times of the various crops. The potato is a main crop, especially the Arran and Pentland family.
Three years ago, the Community attempted to outlaw the King Edward potato in this country, although it has been a marvellous crop yielder through the ages. A flowering potato does not do as well as the Red King or Majestic, but it is a beautiful second early potato which is very edible and very beneficial to the farmer because it meets the vacuum between the early and the late and, as a consequence, he has a continuity of crop yield.
So the hon. Member for Westmorland is wrong. He should have studied agriculture. I remind him that I took agriculture as my second subject as well, and


perhaps I achieved equally high standards. Hence my academic knowledge and more practical knowledge of growing seeds.
I have just sent away for £3 worth of onion seed, and for each pound in money I receive approximately 85 seeds in a packet measuring six inches by four inches. One can get 85 onion seeds on a new penny without spilling one. Therefore, I suggest that in the regulations there should be some etiquette, at least for packaging.
I have sent to Sinclair McGill for one of the best onions known to me in this country; I have sent to Robinson's for its improved Mammoth and I am also growing Ryan's Exhibition. Next week, I shall bring to the House three onions weighing 11 lbs three ounces between them. So I have some experience.
When I weigh the advantages against the disadvantages. I find that the germination percentage is very low by comparison with the yield, because no one can guarantee a germination percentage. One year one can get terrific frosts and as a consequence one's soil is slower in working up and one gets at lower percentage. In conditions like those of last winter soil heats up quickly and one gets a high percentage yield.
It is difficult for Ministers to draw a comparison right across the board in the Community on a percentage yield for any seed, from potatoes down to the minutest seed one can get, which I imagine is in the petunia family. That works out at about 48,500 to the half cubic foot. The yield from petunias is about 45 per cent. Anyone who achieves a 45 per cent. yield is doing tremendously well and will make a profit if he is in the nursery business, because he will fix his price according to the percentage of germination. No regulations in the world can determine the percentage of germination or guarantee that percentage. I suggest, therefore, although I support the regulations, that Ministers should carefully examine proposals before they are drawn up in the Common Market.
Spain has applied to join the Common Market. I have sent to Spain for a packet of onion seeds. The packet tells me that I must sow the seeds in March. But, as every onion grower knows, he must sow his seeds on Christmas Day. If I sow in

March I shall get my onions in November when they are rotten. We grow onions both for immediate use and for keeping. I could keep the House here until 5 a.m. explaining the difficulties caused by different climates.
That is why we have hothouses for germination. That is why 90 per cent. of cabbages that are grown for spring use are grown in hothouses. They then germinate quickly and they fill the vacuum between the crops. That applies across the board from January Kings and Greyhounds to the Savoys that are familiar in the autumn.
The hon. Member for Westmorland professes to have theoretical and practical knowledge of agriculture. But he must remember the man who keeps this country going with a spade. He must remember the man who goes to Woolworths, for instance, and looks at an exhibition of seed packages. The picture on each package is of an exhibition specimen, a first prize winner at the Shrewsbury or Southport show. When that man finds that he achieves only 45 per cent. germination, he is disappointed.
The regulations must be tidied up. Conditions must be set strictly in accordance with the climate. There is a fundamental difference between the yields in Scotland and other parts of the country and in Europe. The potato grower must adjust his price for the earlier range to meet the price of the later yield. That applies whether he is growing Pentland Crowns or any other variety. It is difficult to legislate when one is dealing with climatic conditions from Denmark to Stuttgart, from the vine fields in West Germany to Lands End and John o' Groats. Account must be taken of the variations. If we try to draw a level or mean right across the board for the percentage of germination, we shall fail miserably in our aspirations concerning the creation of a system of quality for horticulture, agriculture and even the amateur gardener.
I suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister takes cognisance of this and looks at the whole question, from Kelso to Devon and from Devon to Stuttgart, which is only a hump in the plain these days, and considers the different conditions, the different colours of the soil and the varying germination rates. I have 4,000 square yards of garden, and I have blisters to prove that I am fairly diligent


over it. I know that my crops cannot be a success unless I get a high percentage of germination. These regulations do not provide such a guarantee. I suggest that the Minister looks very carefully at the variations across the board, therefore, and makes representations accordingly.

3.6 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am full of amazement at the knowledge of hon. Members on a variety of subjects. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), that well-known seed grower, along the line he has taken tonight. I say only that he certainly knows his onions.
We on the Select Committee considered this measure. It is one of those that could obviously slip through very quickly, but we felt that there was something important in it which should be debated by the House. I welcome what the Minister said about the views of the Government on seed that is below standard.
I must declare an interest. The farm in which I have an active interest felt for the first time the rigours and difficulties of the new Community regulations. I pay tribute to the work of the National Seed Development Organisation, and the National Institute of Agriculture and Botany. They do an excellent job, and many farmers can certainly vouch for that. We certainly have experience in that direction. Their standard of work is very high. I only wish that were true of similar organisations in the Community.
I have evidence that some of the inspectors in the Community are not always as careful as one would like and that they have passed herbage seed that would not have been passed in this country. Our seed is generally of a high standard and is certainly of a different grading.
I am told that in the Community certain herbage seed is obtained from the Eastern bloc. How can such seed be guaranteed? How can it reach the required standard? The country of origin has to be checked and certified. I am afraid, therefore, that that seed is coming into the Community, is reproduced and is then distributed all over the Community.
I have a letter from the Southern Counties Agricultural Trading Society, one of those excellent co-operatives that we have in this country. It has a high reputation in the herbage seed world. The letter states
Breeders are responsible for producing basic seed and must have it under their control until the time of certification. Samples of all basic seed supplied to industry are grown under official conditions to check that no impurities are present. This provides not only a check against the seed as supplied by the breeder, but also against possible admixture subsequently on the farm … The principle of quality control in seed production is sound. The Certifying Authority in each EEC member country is controlled by the appropriate Government, and so one possible problem area is that the certifying regulations may be interpreted slightly differently in each country, or may even be applied with different degrees of diligence.
That is what worries me. It is the nub of the problem of harmonisation in all these matters that the interpretation of the regulations can be different and that there are different degrees of diligence in the certification.
SCATS adds:
In any event, if Government is to assume responsibility for certifying seed crops, it must also accept liability for any consequences arising from their actions.
That, too, is extremely important. It is all very well for the Community to press for uniformity of standards of seed, but we need uniformity of standards of certification, inspection and control. That is where I have my doubts. Certainly, the Government that certified the seed, or their inspectors, must accept liability for any consequences of their action. This is most important, and I hope that we may have some assurance from the Minister that he will put forward that view in Brussels.
I come to a practical illustration of the problem, which concerns me and my brother on the farm where we grow many acres of Moretti perennial ryegrass basic seed. This year we obtained the seeds from a Dutch company. It was properly certified by the Dutch inspectors as being up to their standards. The resultant crop contained impurities, which were also found to be present in the official plots sown with seed taken from the same source of supply. In other words, the test plots of the NIAB contained the same impurities as the inspectors found on the farm when they came to certify our seed.


The crop on the farm was therefore turned down by the certifying authority in this country, at a heavy loss to the grower, to us, of many thousands of pounds.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will note that the British certifying authority rejected the seed but the Dutch certifying authority passed the basic seed, because there were different standards; hence the problem, hence the dilemma. Standards must be harmonised and be constant.
As the Parliamentary Secretary rightly said, under these new regulations the seed cannot be sold within the Community. Yet it is first-class herbage seed, though it contains some other varieties of perennial ryegrass seeds. It is not that it contains weeds or different varieties of grass seed. We have suffered as a result of what has happened. The Minister must carefully watch this sort of difficulty.
I admit that it is best to keep very high standards, but the interpretation must be constant and the standards must be applied with the same degree of diligence. We are perhaps among the first British seed growers to suffer.
Why has such a grass as Moretti perennial ryegrass been taken off the approved list of varieties after one year? Is it because of its source? Is it because of these new Community regulations? It would be interesting to know, because again it is not much use seed growers in the Community having approved seeds if they are not on the approved list in this country. That is another practical point.
I believe that it is necessary to keep up the very high standard of pure seed varieties produced in this country. But there is a strong case for allowing a second grade which can be used by farmers in the country of origin. I do not suggest that such seed should be exported to other Community countries. It might pay us to go back to some system where there is a second class of seed. Everybody would know what it was like. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said, it may even be of lower germination. But, as I said, as long as people knew about it, it would not do any harm. Certainly it must not be reproduced for sale again and it must not be exported to other Community countries. However, there is a strong argument for farmers being

allowed to have the use of such seed, which may not be of the very highest standard.
I welcome this document. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the various queries that I have raised. Above all, I hope that he will make plain in Brussels that we want harmonisation not only of seed but of inspection and certifying standards over the whole range.

3.17 a.m.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I should like to speak specifically about the Scottish seed potato industry, which is an important part of the Scottish agricultural scene. I want the Minister to do all in his power to ensure that one of Scotland's prime agricultural interests is defended in any EEC alteration or creation of regulations. I was glad to receive his earlier reassurances on that matter.
From the Scottish point of view, any raising of standards or safeguarding of the quality of seed potatoes which are marketed is to be welcomed. Scottish producers have a proud record of consistently high quality production for the seed market. It is certainly in their interests that, above all, quality of the end product is maintained.
I hope that the Government will seek to ensure that an increased market for certified seed, with its corollary of strictly certified and accurately labelled products, is achieved as quickly as possible. Scotland has the highest quality seed available. Such an attempt to achieve quality will be of great advantage to our industry.
I notice that other countries—Holland and England—operate certification schemes which are different from the scheme presently working in Scotland. I should like some reassurances from the Minister about the common standards to be adopted in these matters in the Common Market. How close will Community grades be to the Scottish seed potato regulations and standards? It is important that seed potato regulations and standards elsewhere be raised to the Scottish level. Scottish standards are among the best in Europe.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) expressed fears about harmonisation and the lowering of standards. Scotland's position as a basic seed producing area must be protected. I should


like to hear specific assurances on this important Scottish interest.
Referring to paragraph 2(c) of the explanatory memorandum, I should like an assurance that no loopholes will be created by these proposals that will allow uncertificated seed to go on to the market. To be of use to Scottish agriculture any EEC certification scheme must acknowledge our high grading standards. Again, I note the supremacy of Scotland and Poland as the biggest producers of basic seed in the world. I hope the Minister appreciates that.
Any EEC uniform standard proposals must accept the present Scottish standards and values, and ensure that our interests are adequately understood in Europe and properly protected. Any new regulations must be designed to ensure that low-quality uncertified seed is kept off the commercial market as far as possible.
Scottish seed producers are attempting to maintain and improve standards, particularly those in my constituency of South Angus. They are in the process of forming a Scottish seed potato producers' association. Will there be any future consultation on these matters with the association, and if so, what form will the consultation take? These people are keenly interested in future developments and I hope that their views will be taken into account.

3.22 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I know that the Parliamentary Secretary wants to reply to many of the points raised, so I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Derbyshire North-East (Mr. Swain) promised to speak for two minutes only, and ended up speaking much longer. I do not think he was actually in order, but nevertheless the points he made have a certain relation to the features of the draft document being considered tonight.
I declare a non-interest, not being an expert in these matters. The characteristics of the seeds in this document are innate characteristics, and have nothing to do with external factors. It is very difficult to have classic Community harmonisation documents dealing with external factors.
The groping, halting process towards harmonisation of all sorts of standards

is desirable, particularly in this field, but enough technical problems have already been raised in this debate.
Personally I feel—and I am not an agricultural expert—that this is an extremely useful measure of harmonisation, although it is much less dramatic than others and not likely to capture the newspaper headlines. Nevertheless, it is much more exciting and much less absurd than certain other aspects of harmonisation. The newspapers often claim that aspects are absurd, but frequently they are not. This instance is a practical way of harmonising good standards.
The trade association was right to voice objections earlier to the proposals, and the Select Committee dealt with those objections in its report. I hope that in due course the Government will fully assuage the original anxieties of the association.
I question the Parliamentary Secretary on a point about scrutiny, which is also relevant. The House is debating this matter very late tonight because of the emergency debate, but it is not the first time that Commission documents have been discussed in a way that is unsatisfactory to the House. I hope that this will be taken care of in future. It is difficult to get at the Leader of the House, who is not very preoccupied with EEC debates. The Parliamentary Secretary might convey to him some suggestions for modifications and improvements. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues will be bringing forward other agricultural documents in this current Session.
We still seem to be in the old pattern. Without detracting from the intrinsic, central importance of these documents, I think that this would have been a suitable subject to have been considered upstairs in the Statutory Instruments Committee. I do not think that any of my colleagues from agricultural constituencies would have objected to that. It is more appropriate for documents of this kind to be debated there than to take them on the Floor of the House at this absurdly late hour. What is more, that would have left time for discussion on the Floor of the House on the important principal areas of Community legislation.
Be that as it may, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make some general comment on the problem of


scrutiny. There will be many agricultural documents coming before the House in the future. After all the discussion, thoughts and hiccups and the resulting delays from this procedure, would not it be better to devise a more modern and streamlined procedure, which the House could perfectly well do? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a little sympathetic to the remarks that I have just made

3.26 a.m.

Mr. Strang: if I may, I shall reply fairly briefly to a number of the matters which have been raised. On more detailed points I think that it would be more appropriate for me to write to the hon. Members who raised them.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) inquired about the attitude of COSEMCO. I can tell him that it was consulted about all the proposals contained in the directive and that it accepted them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman regards the amending directive as an advance, subject to one or two matters about which I agree with him.
Although it is true that the seed marketing directives lay down a Community standard for certified seed, this has not involved the abandonment of the higher standards that we apply in certain areas in the United Kingdom. We have to bear in mind that we have higher standards in certain areas. We retain these higher standards. But the Community is not automatically raised to those standards. If we want higher standards, there is no reason why we should not have them.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) drew attention to a difficulty which he had encountered on his own farm. Here we may have an illustration of that very point. There is no reason to doubt the effectiveness of the controls or the integrity of our partners' certifying authorities. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence to the contrary, I shall be happy to consider it. But I suggest that the real answer lies in the alignment of standards that we are now endeavouring to achieve.
It may be that the Community standard which applied to ale seed imported by the hon. Gentleman was less stringent than he appreciated at the time because he tended to assume that the standard would be the same as that which we operate in this country. If he would like me to

pursue the matter with him in correspondence, I shall be willing to do so. Obviously his experience was unfortunate, and we would not want it to be repeated by our growers.

Mr. Mills: There are legal problems at the moment, but if they are not resolved satisfactorily I should like to take up the Minister's offer. The problem was that the seed from Holland contained other varieties of ryegrass apart from Moretti. It was clear that Holland was prepared to accept a lower standard than we were.

Mr. Strang: I am not sure whether the standard accepted in Holland should be regarded as being in breach of the certified standard laid down for Community trade.
If I may turn to specific points, let me make clear that there are no plans to abandon any grades of potatoes in this country and when we accept the marketing directive, only certified seed will be marketed here. A similar situation exists under the new arrangements for cereals.
I have a particular interest in this matter. I come from a good seed potato growing area and when I was a student I spent a summer vacation inspecting potatoes in Aberdeenshire. I am well seized—as are our officials—of the need to protect the collective interest and we have not yet accepted the marketing directive for this reason. We shall accept it only when we have the assurances and agreement we need in relation to plant health as it affects potatoes.
We have made some important progress. We have designated Northern Ireland and Scotland as high grade seed potato growing areas and we have persuaded the Community to accept in principle that there will be a higher Community grade in these countries, at least in the first instance. No other country has a high grade seed area. I hope that I have reassured the House that the Government are determined to continue their policy of protecting the interests of our seed potato growers.
As regards consultations, I cannot anticipate how discussions with the organisation referred to by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) will be handled. This is a matter for the Department of


Agriculture in Scotland. We are grateful for the helpful and constructive attitude taken by the National Association of Seed Potato Merchants. It has been a tower of strength in the negotiations and it augurs well for the future that the Government have such confidence in the organisation and have received such good advice from it.
The Scrutiny Committee has enabled us to have a useful discussion. If we had not been members of the EEC, such changes as these might have gone through without debate. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). It is not a matter for me and I shall see that it is passed on to the Leader of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1170/77 on seed and plant marketing.

Orders of the Day — RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of the House of 14th January 1975 relating to the appointment of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration be amended as follows:
Line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert '(a) the operation of the Race Relations Act 1976 with particular reference to the work of the Commission for Racial Equality; and'.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Orders of the Day — FLOOD DAMAGE (EALING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

3.34 a.m.

Mr. William Molloy: The subject matter of this debate is one of the most distressing, annoying and frustrating events to afflict part of my constituency since I have had the honour to represent it. I shall relate the grim story.
On the night of 16th August last and continuing into the morning of 17th August a tremendous rainstorm hit North-West London. Parts of my constituency suffered severe flooding, particularly Coston Avenue, Costons Lane and Bridge Avenue, in the Greenford and

Hanwell areas in my constituency. Over 300 homes, a school and old-age pensioner flats known as Brent Lodge were flooded to a depth of over 3 ft. Services were completely disrupted. Telephone services did not work. Tradesmen could not get to the areas afflicted.
There was considerable damage and upset, and, to some degree, a risk to life, as well as tremendous loss of property. There has been amazing and enormous misery and fright which has to this day stayed with those of my constituents who suffered from the effects of the storm, and incredible degrees of what would appear to be maladministration on the part of various administrations concerned with this matter, to which I shall refer later.
I shall briefly explain the cause. The River Brent runs through Greenford and Hanwell and discharges into the Thames. At the time of the storm the high level of the tide in the Thames restricted the discharge of the River Brent into it. The rainfall at the time was exceptionally high, all that night and morning. Because of that, the Welsh Harp reservoir in the London borough of Brent also stood in danger of bursting its banks. If that had happened, it would have truly been a most disastrous event. A decision was therefore taken to raise the sluice gates of the Welsh Harp and so prevent the Brent Valley being flooded.
However, because of the raising of the sluice gates at the Welsh Harp, there was a massive increase of water in the River Brent, which flowed down through to Greenford and Hanwell, so the River Brent burst its banks, and, in addition to that, the Costons Brook contributed to the flooding. If there is to be any investigation and inquiry, not only must the flooding of the River Brent be taken into consideration but so also must the flooding that was caused by Costons Brook. All this must be part of the inquiry.
I now come to the most distressing feature of this matter other than the flooding itself. That is the fact that when the decision to open the sluice gates of the Welsh Harp reservoir was taken, no warning was given to Ealing Council or the police. British Waterways claims that it had only to warn the GLC but could not contact the GLC because it had changed the relevant emergency telephone numbers and had not informed British


Waterways. This meant that the Ealing authorities were not given the vital opportunity to take preventive and alleviatory measures.
I submit that this gross negligence carries with it a responsibility to pay compensation to my constituents whose homes suffered, and to Ealing Council whose property was damaged. I want an assurance that such a crass and dangerous muddle can never recur. The Secretary of State for the Environment must co-operate with the Ealing Council and the GLC to make funds available to compensate and help my constituents who suffered remarkable loss. Further, to prevent a terrible recurrence, I have to demand a public inquiry to ascertain all the facts involved, concerning such things as alleged technical and administrative failures in warning systems and other matters. My constituents have suffered brutally from the elements and, it would appear, maladministration, particularly on the part of the GLC.
From what I can gather, Ealing Council responded swiftly on the night in question and carried out prompt alleviation measures. Nevertheless, the people who had their homes damaged, and in some cases had their lives threatened, are angry because of the failure of the warning system. They believe that the public inquiry will provide a guarantee that failures of this sort will never happen again.
I ask the Minister whether, in conjunction with the GLC and the Thames Water Authority, he will seek to make a reality of the Brent flood alleviation scheme as a matter of urgent importance. People in Greenford and Hanwell are angry and apprehensive. They demand to know the truth and so they turn to the highest legislature in the land, the House of Commons. I believe that they have a perfect right so to do. I agree with their demand, which is why I raise this matter tonight.
I am pleased to see that, despite the late hour, my two parliamentary colleagues who represent, with me, the London borough of Ealing, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), have remained to give me their support and demonstrate their great concern over what happened on this eventful night. They hope, with me, that we can make the case for a public inquiry.
I do not wish to hear any arguments from the Minister, such as I have heard when discussing this matter with other administrations. I do not want to hear infuriating submissions dealing with statutory permissions and permissive features of regulations. This is annoying to the folk who lost their homes and in some cases came near to losing their lives in these massive floods. We think that we have a justifiable case in view of the various stories, explanations and reasons given by British Waterways, the Thames Water Authority and the GLC. Everyone who has been involved so far has been engaged in that ancient exercise of passing the buck. I hope that the buck will stop here, on the Floor of the House of Commons, and that appropriate action will be taken to institute a full inquiry.
The people want a public inquiry. I believe that both my parliamentary colleagues will support me in that demand for a public inquiry. The councillors of the wards concerned support me in that demand. I hope that my hon. Friend will give it full consideration so that this House will then restore the peace of mind and sense of justice to which my constituents are entitled.
It is vital that that be done so that we can say to our constituents "You have endured grave frustration, you have endured hardship, but if there is any misconception any argument or any buck-passing at other levels of public administration in the land, this House of Commons will see that the truth emerges so that nothing like this can happen again and that all preventive measures necessary are taken to ensure that your peace of mind is never disturbed in this way again."

3.46 a.m.

Sir George Young: I compliment the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) on the way in which he has addressed himself to this matter, which has aroused deep concern in the borough, and I thank him for allowing me a little time to intervene briefly in this short debate.
I attended a public meeting in Green-ford a few days ago—the hon. Gentleman was unfortunately precluded from attending because of ill health—and the high degree of public concern about this matter was very clear. This is especially


so among my constituents living in Cleveley Crescent, which runs close to the River Brent. At that meeting one was presented with the unedifying spectacle of members of one public body trying to pass the buck to other members of another public body, and the sound reverberated as the buck whistled from one to another.
What we need is a public inquiry but, more important, it should be an independent inquiry, because we have had a large number of representations from the various authorities concerned, each seeking to exempt itself from responsibility. It would be helpful for those who live in the London borough of Ealing to have an independent inquiry into this matter just to establish where responsibility lies.
More important still, we must look ahead. The people in Ealing want an assurance that such a disaster will not happen again. This aspect of the matter can be divided into the long-term solution and the short-term solution. The long-term solution, I fear, involves some public expenditure in terms of flood prevention measures, and I consider that the GLC should address itself to the long-term problem. But in the short term, as the hon. Gentleman said, we need a better information and early warning system. Those who live in the danger area must receive some warning that floods are imminent if there is ever a recurrence of such a combination of freak circumstances.
A public inquiry could deal with the broad question of what went wrong and whose fault it was, but it could also, perhaps, produce some solutions which could commend themselves to the various bodies concerned, and all those who represent Ealing, in Parliament or on the borough council, could use their influence to ensure that they were adopted.

3.50 a.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) on the way in which he put the case on behalf of the sorely pressed people of the London borough of Ealing.
On this night in August, at the invitation of the London borough of Ealing, I attended the meeting held just over the border in my hon. Friend's constituency.

I think that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) will agree that at that meeting there was public anxiety of a kind that we had never previously found at any assembly in our political experience. There was great concern that what had occurred that night must never happen again.
It remains for me to underscore the demand for an inquiry. These are frightened people, and they wonder whether there will be a repetition of what they suffered on that night. I do not think that their fears can be allayed other than by an independent inquiry.
People from my part of the London borough of Ealing were not affected to anything like the extent suffered by hundreds of householders in the constituencies of my two parliamentary colleagues. That three of us are present in the Chamber at this unusual hour is an indication of the local anxiety, and it can be cleared up only by the Government acceding to the request for an independent inquiry.

3.51 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Let me first express my deep sympathy for those constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and others whose homes and property suffered in the flooding on 17th August. My hon. Friend has left no stone unturned in his efforts to bring home to the authorities the plight of his constituents and his determination to secure action on their behalf.
My hon. Friend will know from our correspondence and from the meetings that I have had with him on this issue that I fully share his concern that the people of Greenford and the other affected areas should not have to live with the threat of a recurrence. But sympathy by itself is not enough, and my hon. Friend has indicated—and he is right to do so—that he expects prompt and positive action.
Before I respond to the points that have been made perhaps I can briefly run over the facts of the situation and current developments. There is no doubt that the rainfall on 16th–17th August was of exceptional intensity in


North-West London—over 4 ins. were recorded in the Brent catchment in the 24. hours. It proved altogether too much for a number of the watercourses and channels which drain the area. In particular, the lower reaches of the River Brent and a number of its tributaries experienced very heavy flows. The worst-affected areas included parts of my hon. Friend's constituency. A total of 1,100 houses, as well as other property, were flooded to depths of up to 5 ft. Another factor was that the existing incomplete flood warning system proved ineffective because a number of rain gauges failed to operate.
The Greater London Council, which is the land drainage authority for most of the affected area, has since carried out a detailed investigation into the causes and the circumstances of the flooding and has agreed to immediate action to improve the flood warning system. It has also announced its intention of bringing forward its programme of flood alleviation works for high-risk areas. I understand that the council committee concerned will consider detailed proposals later this month.

Mr. Molloy: If, as my hon. Friend says, steps are to be taken to improve the flood warning system, that must indicate that there is something wrong with it, or that it is not at top efficiency.

Mr. Strang: I think there can be no question that what my hon. Friend says is correct. The flood warning system was unsatisfactory. The rain gauges in some areas—as is brought out in the GLC report—were inoperative or were malfunctioning. Further, it is true, as my hon. Friend said, that the British Waterways Board employee who operated the sluice gate was unable to make contact with the GLC. He did not have the telephone number of the hydrologist—he was on duty at his home—and clearly a great deal was wrong with the flood warning arrangements on that night. I also understand that the committee is actively considering the possibility of paying compensation to the victims under its general powers under the Local Government Act.
I recognise that these bare facts indicate little of the impact of the flooding on the unfortunate residents, but they serve as background to my comments on the

specific points my hon. Friend has raised. I shall be as constructive as I can.
My hon. Friend has expressed legitimate concern over the failure to give any useful warning of flooding. As I have mentioned, the GLC's investigations have established that the existing incomplete warning equipment did not function properly. I understand that this was at least partly due to lack of maintenance arising from the cutback in council expenditure in this field. These failures are very regrettable and I am glad to note that the council's public services and safety committee has decided on an urgent programme of improvements to the warning system. No doubt the other authorities concerned will be reviewing their own arrangements for such contingencies.
I should make it clear that, because of the rapid run-off in this built-up area, the time lapse between heavy rainfall and flooding is extremely short. I understand that even if all the equipment works well and the emergency staff react promptly there can be no more than a 13-minute warning
My hon. Friend, supported by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), has also argued the case for a full public inquiry into the flooding. My right hon. Friend has certain powers to hold inquiries for the purposes of the Land Drainage Act 1976. However, that same Act gives the GLC sole responsibility for land drainage in the "London excluded area"—approximating to Greater London.
If my right hon. Friend were to hold a public inquiry, it would be inquiring into matters in which the GLC had no statutory obligations. We must also bear in mind that any inquiry under the Land Drainage Act would be limited in scope to matters covered in that Act. It could not, for example, cover the question of compensation or the duties or responsibilities of the British Waterways Board. As hon. Members are aware, the GLC is answerable to its electorate and its ratepayers. This applied to its decision earlier to cut back on land drainage expenditure and to reduce its maintenance gangs; it applies equally to the council's response to the situation which has now arisen.
The council's director of public health engineering has produced a full report


on the flooding. This report of events on the night of 16th to 17th August was a committee document and was thus made available not only to members of the council but also to the Press and the public. However, it would appear from what hon. Members have said that either the contents of this report are not widely known or the report fails to reflect the facts of the situation experienced by the local residents. In the light of this, if my hon. Friend feels that the GLC report does not adequately meet the circumstances, the Government will give serious consideration to his request for a further investigation.
Technical problems and long-term solutions apart, it is entirely understandable that my hon. Friend should emphasise the present difficulties of those who suffered serious loss or damage to their property in the flooding. The first point that I should make, to avoid any misunderstanding, is that there is no statutory liability on the GLC or on any drainage authority to pay compensation for damage or loss caused by flooding. However, the council as a local authority is in a position to consider what response is called for under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972, which deals with the relief of local emergencies. This section leaves the initiative on the question of compensation with the local authority, the only constraint being that if it incurs expenditure it must notify my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment as soon as practicable so that he can consider whether to issue a direction under the powers laid down in the Act.
As I said earlier, the council is now considering the question of compensation, and I am sure my hon. Friend and his constituents will welcome this response by the council to the representations it has received.
The most important consideration for present and future residents in Green-ford and the other affected areas is some assurance of early improvements to the flood defences concerned. I hope that they will be reassured by the GLC's decision to carry out an immediate review of

its capital works programme with particular reference to these high-risk areas.
Capital works will, of course, take time, the more so in this area because improvements to the river inevitably involve interference with adjacent properties. I hope those residents whose property may be affected will co-operate fully with the council when the time comes. But I note that it is intended to achieve significant improvements in the interim by a more intensive maintenance programme. For my part I can assure my hon. Friend that my officials will give prompt and favourable consideration to any application by the GLC for grant aid in respect of expenditure on flood protection schemes or on flood warning equipment. The level of such aid had already been the subject of an approach to the Ministry by the GLC before the August flooding and this is due to be discussed later this week. I hope that the outcome will assist the council in bringing forward its flood defence programme.
This debate is not the end of the matter. It has given the opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall and the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, to raise and focus attention on a matter that is obviously of great importance and concern to many of his constituents. Although it is true that my Ministry does not have direct responsibility in initiating flood protection or flood warning schemes in the area, it is not to be questioned that we shall want financially to support any schemes that the GLC brings forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the Brent alleviation scheme, and we shall obviously be anxious to provide all the financial support that we can to measures of that nature.
I hope I have responded to the points of principal concern to my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that I share his desire to see an early solution to the problem of flooding in this part of London.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Four o'clock a.m.